Netflix's 'Adolescence' sparks warnings over hidden criminal meanings of emoji, could be used as evidence in court
Legal experts have issued fresh warnings about the hidden dangers of emoji use, revealing how the popular digital symbols can now play a central role in criminal investigations. The surge of attention follows Netflix's gripping new crime drama Adolescence, in which detectives crack a case by uncovering sinister meanings behind everyday emoji.
In real-world cases, emoji have appeared in more than 1,000 legal proceedings in the US since 2010. Symbols such as the knife, gun, crown, and aubergine are increasingly used to communicate threats, harassment, or criminal intent—especially among gang members or in cases of sexual misconduct. 'Courtrooms need to keep up with the contemporary modes of communication as all crime is planned and committed through language,' said Professor Russel Kaschula from the University of the Western Cape.
While no emoji is inherently illegal, legal context is key. For example, repeatedly sending gun or knife emoji to someone with whom you've argued may be deemed threatening. In one case, a student was expelled after sending a gun emoji to a classmate. Other symbols, like the crown and high heel, have appeared in sex trafficking trials as code for pimps and prostitution.
Photo: Emojipedia
The field of 'emoji forensics' is growing. Differences in emoji design across devices have already proved decisive in court. In 2021, a lawsuit was dismissed after it was shown that the heart-eyes emoji allegedly sent in a harassment case could not have appeared on the plaintiff's phone system.
Photo: Rossbach v. Montiore Medical/Emojipedia
Even high-profile lawsuits have involved emoji. Actor Justin Baldoni sued The New York Times for omitting an upside-down smiley emoji from a quote, arguing it changed the tone from sarcastic to malicious.
Photo: Apple
With nearly 4,000 emoji in use today, experts are calling for formalised interpretation standards. As Professor Eric Goldman explains, 'Emoji are flooding the legal system,' and their implications can determine guilt or innocence.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
15 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Dept Q review: Scandi-noir with British flair
After a long wait, we have a cop thriller that will sweep you up in its twists and turns and keep you guessing about the suspect and criminal motive until the end. British crime TV is at its best in this new Netflix show starring Mathew Goode. You will be reminded that it has indeed been a long time since Line of Duty popped the reeling reveal of the identity of H, the elusive suspect of the series. Some are likening Dept Q to Broadchurch, a classic crime TV where two British detectives investigated the dramatic case of a missing boy in a coastal town. Basically, the new show created by Scott Frank (The Queen's Gambit) and Chandni Lakhani will not disappoint. Based on a Danish novel by Jussi Adler-Olsen, the creator has set the show in Scotland instead of the original location but the feel of the series keeps true to Scandi noir. The eponymous department is a cold-case division, newly thrown together in the dank basement of the Edinburgh police station. Detective Carl Morck has returned from Q hiatus after being shot at a crime scene he was investigating along with his partner James Hardy. Carl cares for no one and nothing now, it seems, but is nearly devoted to checking up on his friend James who is paralysed as result of the shooting. A motley crew is thrown together for Carl to reluctantly work with, it includes a Syrian ex-cop immigrant Akram, Detective Constable Rose Dickson who has worked with Carl before, and lastly James who dives into the case files in his hospital bed. Akram digs up a file on a missing woman who was a successful prosecutor before she vanished from a boat four years ago. Her case is assumed a suicide but Akram notices it is riddled with inconsistencies. Soon you are strapped in for a ride as the ingredients that make up the case of Merrit Lingard fall open and the detectives start following its scent. Dept Q throws many surprises along the way and is punctuated with several scenes that check the boxes of skilful acting, thoughtful camera work and deft directing. Mathew Goode has shed the debonair looks of his notable roles to play Carl Morck. In Dept Q, his hair is not slicked back and he is not gliding in coat tails to woo a princess (Margaret in The Crown) or an aristocrat (Mary Crawley in Downton Abbey). As Carl Morck, he is gaunt, scruffy and searching for redemption. This is just what Goode and detective thriller addicts needed. Yes, he caught your eye being a suave and exciting eligible bachelor but as a bitter and alienated detective haunted by guilt and PTSD, he is magnetic. Carl and partner James Hardy investigate a crime scene and its fallout is something Carl cannot reckon with. A terribly unpleasant person to begin with, cocky and disdainful, Carl is also grappling with guilt and failure. Like all stock detective characters, he resists going for his mandatory psychiatric sessions to work through his PTSD. But viewers, and later Carl himself, will want to see more interaction with Dr Rachel Irving (Kelly Macdonald). Their verbal sparring is on point and she doesn't miss a chance to call him out as he deflects and scoffs at her and what she represents. The other woman in Carl's work life is perhaps even more direct and brutal in her verbal expression. Chief supervisor Moira (Kate Dickie) creates Dept Q to kill two birds with one stone. She needs more funds to run the station and she wants Carl to keep working but out of her hair. The scenes of her exchanges with Carl are a treat each and every time. In fact, the seasoned acting, which is scarce to behold – on Netflix shows at least – enable the viewer to keep refocusing on the show just as she means to whip Carl into refocusing on his case. There are a host of characters and suspects to consider in the case of Merrit's disappearance. As the investigating team traces the steps of Merrit, they uncover insidious people around her that could be the unusual suspects behind her kidnapping or even murder. Merrit's background, from her youth to the peak of her career, is painted as a story within a story. The execution is a triumph for the directors of the show. The numerous flashbacks do not erase your interest and the two story arcs are tightly interwoven. The kidnappers had devised a shocking plan for Merrit and a diabolical torture chamber. The series boasts a strong Scottish cast with the likes of Dickie and Mark Bonner who plays Merrit's dodgy boss as senior legal officer of the Scottish government. However, Alexej Manvelov who plays the role of Akram Salim holds as much onscreen presence with his gravitas. One looks forward to his scenes with Carl, who begrudgingly respects him as Akram's credibility speaks for itself. While Rose sort of brings heart to the team, being young and keen, she notices the good in her colleagues. She also is dealing with PTSD and simultaneously finding her ground as a detective. It's possible, if the series continues, that we will be familiarised with her backstory. The only 'sweet' relationship is hers and James Hardy's as she looks up to him as a mentor. Discreetly, James helps and encourages her. Played by Jamie Sives (you might recall him from GoT), although James is off the premises of the police station and bed bound, he is not at all forgotten in the nine part series. Although he works on the periphery for the team, in the closing scene, he has recovered enough to reach the office and join the department physically. The look on Carl's face as he slowly turns to see his friend arriving is as satisfying as the show is from the get go. It indicates that much is yet left to be explored by these brilliant detectives. The team may well be banished in the old shower quarters of the police building, but their real work is to discover the world out there. The gritty realism of Dept Q is matched by its aesthetic choices that elevate the show beyond the usual crime fare. The camera lingers deliberately on objects, on eyes, on small gestures that might otherwise be missed. Each visual clue feels loaded with meaning, even when the plot doesn't rush to explain it. These details reward patient viewing, especially as the narrative slowly unfurls its deeper preoccupations: justice, guilt, and the unknowability of others. The psychological depth of the show is perhaps most evident in the way it handles trauma. Everyone in Dept Q is carrying something. Carl's PTSD is front and centre, but Rose's anxiety and Akram's cultural displacement are also subtly woven in. None of this is over-explained. Instead, the show allows these tensions to manifest in offhand remarks, in silence, in the ways the team members do or do not show up for each other. Even Merrit herself, in the flashbacks, is revealed to have been haunted by earlier events. A past case she prosecuted, involving a serial offender who was released on appeal, emerges as a possible motive for revenge. As her timeline catches up to the moment of her disappearance, the tension is unbearable. The final two episodes, a crescendo of confrontation and resolution, are masterfully executed without leaning on melodrama. The reveal is chilling not just for who did it—but for how many knew and did nothing.
Express Tribune
4 days ago
- Express Tribune
Ginny and Georgia season 3: Only recap you need as anticipated Netflix series releases season 3
Ginny & Georgia returns for its highly anticipated third season on June 5th, releasing on Netflix. First premiering in 2021, the series continued its success with a second season in 2023. Despite the four-year gap between seasons, only a few months have passed in the timeline of the show, which follows the turbulent lives of Georgia Miller and her daughter, Ginny, in the small town of Wellsbury. Georgia's Criminal Past Remains Central Georgia's dark past continues to play a significant role in the series. She accidentally killed her first husband, Anthony Greene, by drugging him in an attempt to make him sleep. However, the drugs led to his death. Georgia subsequently called upon her former motorcycle gang to cover up the crime. Her second husband, Kenny Drexel, met a far more deliberate end when she poisoned him with wolfsbane in a smoothie after he made inappropriate advances toward Ginny. Private Investigator Continues to Chase Georgia Gabriel Cordova, the private investigator hired by Kenny's ex-wife, remains relentless in his pursuit of Georgia. Operating under the alias Jesse, Gabriel moved to Wellsbury and began dating Georgia's colleague, Nick. His suspicions about Georgia's involvement in Kenny's death led Ginny to uncover the truth. Though Gabriel nearly gave up his investigation, the suspicious death of Tom Fuller reignited his pursuit. Early Encounter With Joe Adds Depth Georgia's history with Joe, the owner of Blue Farm Café, dates back to when she was just 15 years old and pregnant. Their first meeting, when Joe gave Georgia sunglasses and a sandwich, left a lasting impression. As an adult, Georgia moved to Wellsbury and rekindled her connection with Joe, who still harbours feelings for her. Joe attended her wedding and offered support as a friend, showing the complexity of their relationship. Georgia's Relationship With Zion Remains Unresolved Zion, Ginny's father, shares a complicated history with Georgia. After meeting as teenagers and having Ginny together, Georgia left when Zion's parents tried to take custody of their daughter. Despite several reunions and separations, Zion remains emotionally tied to Georgia, even though he is now dating Simone. The unresolved feelings between Georgia and Zion continue to simmer. Austin's Action Adds Another Layer In season two, Austin's father, Gil, returned from prison. Georgia had framed him for embezzlement to escape his abuse. When Gil resumed his violent behaviour, Austin shot him in the arm to protect himself. Georgia and Ginny covered up the incident, and later, Mayor Paul ensured that Gil could no longer threaten Georgia. Ginny and Marcus End Relationship Ginny and Marcus' on-again, off-again relationship finally came to an end in season two. After Marcus fell into depression, he broke up with Ginny, who chose to support him as a friend. Despite the breakup, Marcus showed his support for Georgia by attending her wedding, highlighting the enduring complexities within their friendship. Friend Group Faces Separate Struggles Ginny's friends also experience their own challenges. Maxine began a relationship with costume designer Silver after her split with Sophie. Bracia started dating her longtime crush, Bryon. Meanwhile, Abby faced personal struggles, including hiding an eating disorder while dealing with her parents' divorce. Her condition remains a secret to her friends, adding another layer of tension to the group dynamic. Paul Learns the Truth Before Wedding Before their wedding, Georgia confessed her criminal past to Paul, though she omitted the details of the murders. Initially planning to leave town, Georgia was persuaded by Ginny to stay. In a surprising twist, Paul chose to marry Georgia anyway, accepting her past and taking steps to protect her from further threats, including those posed by Gil. Wedding Ends With Arrest The joyous occasion of Georgia's wedding took a dark turn when she was arrested during the reception for the murder of Tom Fuller. Days earlier, Georgia had smothered Tom, who was in a coma, as a favour to Cynthia Fuller, who had helped block Gil from renting a property in Wellsbury. Gabriel's suspicions were confirmed after Nick revealed Georgia's presence at Tom's death. Austin, who had witnessed Georgia kill Tom, created emotional tension going into season three. Season 3 Poised to Intensify Series Conflicts As Ginny & Georgia enters its third season, unresolved emotional, legal, and relational conflicts are set to intensify. The show continues to explore how Georgia's past actions impact those closest to her. With the dramatic shifts introduced in season two, viewers can expect even more gripping drama, personal revelations, and deeper consequences in the upcoming season.
Express Tribune
21-05-2025
- Express Tribune
The Bin Laden manhunt on Netflix
Listen to article Many movies, shows and books exist about the circumstances surrounding the Bin Laden killing in Abbottabad, Pakistan. As with any other major story, this one is not conspiracy theory resistant either. Seymour Hersh, a leading and very credible journalist, has his own account of how it all happened but not much discussion ever happened on that one. The US mainstream media as well as Hollywood have always been in the habit of repeating the official account of any story so many times that it somehow becomes the established truth even when it is not. This latest and almost widely watched Netflix show on the manhunt of America's most wanted enemy has repeated the same official narrative about how Bin Laden was tracked through his trusted courier. In this show, Netflix brought in front of cameras and lights the members of the notorious Alec Station of the CIA. There was one such tight group of girls who very obediently followed the directions of their boss and mentor Martin Schmidt. They were infamously quipped as the Manson's family. Some of those girls talk in the show. One of the Navy Seals, who was a member of the team that went to the house in Abbottabad, was also interviewed who shared some stark details. Actually, this one was exactly the soldier who actually came face to face with Bin Laden and actually shot and killed him. The most interesting part about this entire film is not the revelations or the entertainment aspect of it but rather the stuff it doesn't touch upon at all. The show depicts the dehumanised mindset of the American intelligence and military communities. They enjoy reliving the circumstances and the night when they killed Bin Laden. They brag about how the hunt was executed, how young occupants of the house, where Bin Laden was, were shot and killed. Most disturbingly, they sanitise their version of the acts of terror in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in their pursuit of Bin Laden. Minute after minute while watching the show one cannot help but ask the simple question: how do your violent actions make you any different than Bin Laden? Why is it terrorism when Bin Laden did it but not terrorism when you killed more than 10 times more people just while looking for this one man? The arguments presented are that Bin Laden was the enemy of the American people who had declared war on America and for America to go after him and invade lands and unleash bombs on foreign soil was somehow kosher from the international laws standpoint. Well, Bin Laden would agree with that rationale because that is the same rationale he had used as well while justifying his terrorist attacks against the innocent American people who perished on September 11, 2001. To him, the American people were the enemies and in destroying the American symbols of economic and military pride, killing innocent civilians was alright. Do an experiment; try listening to English only translations of the arguments of both sides and you would probably not be able to tell one side from the other. No remorse is felt for the loss of innocent lives. No realisation occurs where one can see that the actions of their side were illegal, immoral, the sheer force employed unnecessary, that those targeted and killed had nothing to do with what this war was all about. America supporting Israel doesn't justify an attack against America where innocent lives are lost just as much as an attack on American soil by Al-Qaeda doesn't justify invading Afghanistan and Iraq. The Taliban at the time were hosting Bin Laden. America accused Bin Laden of 9/11 attacks. The Taliban asked to provide proof of Bin Laden's involvement in order for them to hand him over to the Americans. That was quite a reasonable demand. Isn't that what the Americans would ask for if tables were turned? Instead, Bush announced the decision to invade Afghanistan. The rest is history. The clean shaven white barbarism is somehow treated differently than the one committed by the brown skinned bearded barbarians.
