History of Emojis and Why they're Here to Stay

You always hear that history has a funny way of repeating itself- and the dan of emoticons is just another

example of human’s ability to reinvent and adapt, while always keeping in mind where they came from.

From writing hieroglyphics upon tomb walls in ancient Egypt to typing out emojis on a Facebook wall.

At the dawn of the internet, all content was entirely text-based; meaning between the 1960s and the

1990s all emoticons were rendered in ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange,

a standard code sed by smaller and less-powerful computers) and could only be read sideways.

Super scientist Scott E Fahlman asserted that :-) could indicate “humorous” posts on message boards

and :-( could indicate “serious” posts. The primary went on to gain a reputation as the humble Smiley-

that recognition unfortunately not being equitable with its partner the Frowney.

As the 90s transitioned into the new millennium, emoticons became a personal experience of creating individualized emotions through different combinations of keyboard symbols. What were previously just various keys used for code or type now. Being used in intricate ways to express facial expressions.

Then finally comes the emoji. Emoji is a Japanese word that translates to English as “e” for “picture” and “moji”

for character- a very fitting name for the small creative pictures used in text exchanges. The first emoji was

created in 1999 by Japanese artist Shigetaka Kurita, wanting to design an attractive interface to convey information

in a “simple succinct way.” Kurtia sketches 176 original 12 pixel by 12 pixel images

This influx of emoticon and emoji usage actually helps the way in which people communicate. The media richness theory is the idea that media has different levels of richness, i.e. the ability to understand the facial expressions and full range of emotion through a medium of conversation. For example, a phone call allows for people to hear vocal inflections but not see facial expressions during a conversation. Thus, emojis being inducted into everyday texting scenarios made a relatively shallow medium into one whose richness gets deeper with every new batch of emojis.

1] Augustyn, Adam. 2020. "ASCII | Communications". Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/ASCII.

[2] https://www.britannica.com/topic/emoticon

[3] https://www.thoughtco.com/emoticons-and-emoji-1991412

[4] https://www.thoughtco.com/emoticons-and-emoji-1991412

[5] https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/isre.9.3.256

The Black and White of What Constitutionally Matters

 The Six Clauses of the first amendment, in one succinct sentence, fully detail the extent of our American freedoms. This legendary sentence would truly lead to detailing the way in which our country handles itself, the values which its citizens carry, and the intrinsic rights of man that are inherent to being American.

However, as we've seen for centuries and specifically in the past few months, the fashion and execution of these rights is something still hotly debated. Looking towards the Black Lives Matter protests of current day, theres a dichotomy: looking at the day-lit protests which give the likeness of the Dr.King protests from the 60s, turning into scenes replicable to the LA riots of the 90s. The sentiment has stayed the same through the decades, people of color and allies to the movement using both their freedoms of speech and assembly to outcry that the heightened killing of black people by the police and the unjust system of racism thinly veiled by our country must end. Once researched, theres no argument that this is a reason for revolting, centuries of aggression muffled by the sounds of small victories which distract from the larger issue at hand. 

But the question here isn't whether or not the turmoil is warranted, but rather if it is indeed constitutional. To answer that, we must diverge from just the first amendment to the 14th, detailing, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," (Cornell Law School).  This clearly details that these systems of oppression used and maintained by the state can no longer occur, right? This one sentence should undo the decades after it which allows for the school to prison pipeline, exacerbated arrests and sentencing of people of color, redlining districts populated by race majorities, shouldn't it? 

Probably not coming as quite the shock- no it doesn't. The Slaughter House Cases presented a precedent stuck with by the Supreme Court nullifying the privileges and immunity clause, the exact clause meant to protect the rights of any minority group lasted in its full fervor for less than 10 years,  a group of rich white men yet again taking away the rights inherent for anyone who isn't them.

So we look back at Black Lives Matter to answer the question: is it constitutional? In short: yes and no. The right to redress our grievances is the final line in the sentence which defines the way which we are allowed to use our voices as weapons in a fight than spans generations. However, when we're caught in an endless cycle of rules getting changed in a battle which only benefit one side, maybe the idea of whats constitutional falls short to the question "what is right?" 

My Ruling on the Supreme Court

 

The United States Supreme Court, gracing themselves with the namesake of "the highest judicial body on earth" whose job is to "safeguard American Liberty" has been a body who is all but humble in the immense power in which it holds. This ultimate authority over human nature in our country being granted to nine old (typically male and even more typically white) people has flaws inherent for anyone willing to question American conventions to spot from a mile, or oceans away. 

In the video, Justice David H. Souter makes an offhanded remark when asked about the severity of this position, saying "you do the most work when you forget that you're here." Is it valid to allow the severity of your position to fall into normalcy solely because of time? Sure, jobs which sound intriguing to the hopeful applicant can reveal themselves as ultimately a dichotomy of minutia and lunch breaks, but when the decisions made on your typical work day effect the lives of the money and set the precedent for how situations should be handled is it defensible to shrug your way into the courtroom, 10 minutes late with an expresso just as you would to the office?

Maybe I'm being too critical, maybe mundanity is inevitable regardless of career path. As I watched the documentary, there was one other sentiment which truly stuck out to me. Drew S Days III, former Solicitor General of the US details just how important and truly awesome the power of the role of judge is, giving. your argument to nine willing and able sets of ears ready to debate and differ against your ideas. The judges themselves going on a tangent about just how powerful the aural arguments are, how strength and intrigue in a lawyer's diction when presenting the case can make or break the ruling. If nothing else,  the courts provide yet another example of the fortitude of the written word. And yet, Days' most interesting point was how, once your argument has started, how casual it feels. "It's just you have a conversation with nine people, everyone has the common goal of doing whats right." 

His idea leaves an interesting discovery, that maybe great power and great responsibility don't have to always feel so immense, that just maybe casually accepting the severity of the role of a Supreme Court judge isn't the wrong- however exactly right reaction. Sure, you're garnering the responsibility of a nation, but that nation is just comprised of people, individuals all looking to live life for the same pursuits: life, liberty and happiness.