Court is Now in Session_Case018

Case No. 018

The People v. "I Will Get Back to You."

Court Clerk:

"All rise!"

"This Honourable Court is now in session. The Honourable Justice Common Sense presiding."

Judge:

"Be seated."

"Bailiff, what brings the People before this Court today?"

Bailiff:

"The People have brought a matter concerning a phrase that has caused considerable confusion, My Lord."

The Judge looks towards the prosecution.

"What phrase?"

Bailiff:

"I will get back to you."

The Judge leans back.

"I see."

"Is this the phrase people use when they genuinely intend to return to a conversation?"

"Yes, My Lord."

"And is this also the phrase people use when they have absolutely no idea when they will return to the conversation?"

"Frequently, My Lord."

The Judge sighs.

"Proceed."

Court Clerk:

"Case No. 018."

"The People versus 'I Will Get Back to You.'"

Charge: Premeditated Conversational Abandonment, Aggravated Delay in Returning, False Assurance of Follow-Up, and Repeated Abuse of the Phrase "I Will Get Back to You."

Prosecutor:

"Ready for the People, My Lord."

Counsel:

"Ready for the Defence."

Judge:

"Bring in the accused."

The accused enters the courtroom.

It is Mr. I Will Get Back to You.

The Judge studies him carefully.

"Mr. Get Back to You..."

"Yes, My Lord?"

"Have you appeared before this Court previously?"

"No, My Lord."

"Interesting."

The Judge opens a file.

"Because I have seen your work."

The accused remains silent.

"Proceed."

The Case for the Prosecution

Prosecutor:

"My Lord, the People submit that this case concerns one of the most abused phrases in modern human communication."

"The phrase sounds reassuring."

"It sounds responsible."

"It sounds like a commitment."

The Prosecutor pauses.

"And that is precisely the problem."

The Judge nods.

"Continue."

"When someone says, 'I will get back to you,' the listener reasonably assumes three things."

"One, that the matter has been heard."

"Two, that the matter has not been forgotten."

"And three..."

The Prosecutor turns towards the accused.

"...that the accused intends to return."

The Judge nods.

"Reasonable assumptions."

"Indeed, My Lord."

"But the evidence will show that the accused has perfected a different strategy."

"He uses the promise of a future response to obtain immediate freedom from the present conversation."

The gallery murmurs.

The Judge looks over his glasses.

"That is a serious allegation."

"It is, My Lord."

"How serious?"

The Prosecutor opens a file.

"Three weeks, My Lord."

The gallery reacts.

The Judge looks up.

"Three weeks?"

"Three weeks."

"After saying 'I will get back to you'?"

"Yes, My Lord."

The Judge looks towards the accused.

"That is no longer getting back."

The Prosecutor nods.

"That is relocating."

The gallery erupts.

Judge:

"Order!"

 

Exhibit A: The Original Promise

The Prosecutor places a message before the Bench.

Monday, 10:14 a.m.

Person A:

"Please can you confirm whether you have reviewed the document?"

Mr. I Will Get Back to You:

"I will get back to you."

The Judge nods.

"Perfectly ordinary."

"Yes, My Lord."

"Nothing suspicious."

"At that point, no, My Lord."

The Prosecutor places another document before the Court.

Wednesday, 2:37 p.m.

Person A:

"Just following up on this."

No response.

Another document.

Friday, 9:08 a.m.

Person A:

"Any update?"

No response.

Another document.

Monday, 11:42 a.m.

Person A:

"Please let me know when convenient."

No response.

The Judge looks at the accused.

"Mr. Get Back to You..."

"Yes, My Lord?"

"When did you intend to get back?"

The accused pauses.

"Soon, My Lord."

The Judge raises an eyebrow.

"Define soon."

The accused says nothing.

The Judge nods.

"I thought so."

 

Exhibit B: The Court's Working Dictionary

The Prosecutor approaches the screen.

"I will get back to you."

The phrase appears beneath several possible meanings.

1.

"I need to check this and I will respond shortly."

The Judge nods.

"Acceptable."

2.

"I cannot answer right now, but I intend to return to this."

"Acceptable."

3.

"I need more time."

"Still acceptable."

4.

"I do not know the answer yet."

"Perfectly acceptable."

5.

"I have seen your message and I am buying myself time."

The Judge pauses.

"Suspicious."

6.

"I have no immediate intention of dealing with this, but I would like the conversation to end."

The gallery laughs.

The Judge looks towards the accused.

"Highly suspicious."

7.

"I will remember this conversation approximately three weeks from now when something reminds me."

The gallery erupts.

Judge:

"Order!"

The Prosecutor turns towards the accused.

"Which definition applies to you?"

The accused hesitates.

"Number five."

The Judge nods.

"At least we are making progress."

 

The Prosecution Calls the Witness

Court Clerk:

"Call the witness."

The People call Ms. Reminder.

The witness enters the box.

The Judge looks at her.

"Ms. Reminder."

"My Lord."

"You have had previous dealings with the accused?"

"Many, My Lord."

"And what is your role?"

"I remind people of things they said they would do."

The Judge nods.

"A noble profession."

"Thank you, My Lord."

Prosecutor:

"Ms. Reminder, when the accused says, 'I will get back to you,' what usually happens?"

"He does not."

The gallery laughs.

The Judge raises his gavel.

"Order."

The Prosecutor continues.

"How long does he normally take?"

"Sometimes hours."

"Sometimes days?"

"Yes, My Lord."

"Sometimes weeks?"

"Yes."

"Has he ever returned after someone completely forgot the original conversation?"

"Several times."

The Judge looks puzzled.

"How is that possible?"

"He appears suddenly with, 'Just getting back to you on this.'"

The gallery explodes.

The Judge bangs his gavel.

"Order!"

The Prosecutor smiles.

"Ms. Reminder, would you say the accused understands that people are waiting for his response?"

"Yes, My Lord."

"Does he understand that 'I will get back to you' creates an expectation?"

"Yes."

"And yet?"

"He disappears."

The Judge looks towards the accused.

"That sounds familiar."

 

Cross-Examination

Counsel:

"My Lord, the Defence wishes to establish an important point."

"Proceed."

"Ms. Reminder, is there any universally agreed period within which someone must return after saying, 'I will get back to you'?"

"No."

"So, one cannot say that two hours is automatically too long?"

"Correct."

"One day?"

"Not necessarily."

"Three days?"

"Depends on the matter."

"One week?"

"Also depends."

Counsel turns towards the Judge.

"My Lord, the prosecution's case is therefore built upon an arbitrary concept of time."

The Judge nods.

"That is a reasonable argument."

Counsel turns back to the witness.

"So the phrase itself does not contain a deadline?"

"No."

"Thank you."

Counsel sits.

The Prosecutor rises.

"With permission, My Lord."

"Proceed."

"Ms. Reminder, although the phrase does not contain a specific deadline..."

"Yes?"

"Does it contain an expectation of return?"

"Yes."

"And if someone knows they cannot return within a reasonable period?"

"They should say so."

The Prosecutor nods.

"That will be all."

 

The Accused Takes the Stand

Counsel:

"The Defence calls Mr. I Will Get Back to You."

The accused enters the witness box.

Counsel:

"Mr. Get Back to You, do you admit that you sometimes delay?"

"Yes."

"Do you always intend to deceive?"

"No."

"Do you sometimes genuinely need time?"

"Yes."

"Do you sometimes get distracted?"

"Yes."

"Do you sometimes forget?"

A pause.

"Yes."

"Do you sometimes believe you will respond shortly and then discover that several days have passed?"

"Yes."

Counsel turns towards the Judge.

"My Lord, there is no evidence of malicious intent."

The Prosecutor rises.

"Cross-examination."

The Judge nods.

Prosecutor:

"Mr. Get Back to You..."

"Yes?"

"When you say, 'I will get back to you,' are you aware that the other person is likely to wait?"

"Yes."

"Are you aware that they may not follow up because they believe you are handling it?"

"Yes."

"Are you aware that they may interpret your statement as a commitment?"

"Yes."

The Prosecutor pauses.

"Then why do you sometimes disappear?"

The accused looks uncomfortable.

"I get busy."

The Prosecutor nods.

"Of course."

"When you become busy, do you forget that the other person is still waiting?"

"Sometimes."

"And when you finally remember?"

"I respond."

"How long later?"

"Depends."

"On what?"

"How long it takes me to remember."

The gallery erupts.

Judge:

"Order!"

The Prosecutor looks at the accused.

"So your system is..."

He pauses.

"...memory-dependent?"

The accused says nothing.

The Judge shakes his head.

"That is not a system."

 

The Court Intervenes

Justice Common Sense leans forward.

"Mr. Get Back to You."

"Yes, My Lord?"

"I want to clarify something."

"Yes, My Lord."

"If you say, 'I will get back to you,' but you do not yet know when you will respond, what exactly are you promising?"

The accused pauses.

"That I intend to respond."

The Judge nods.

"Good."

"And if your intention changes?"

"I should say so."

"And if you realise you will need much longer than expected?"

"I should update the person."

"Correct."

The Judge looks towards Counsel.

"The Court is beginning to understand the distinction."

 

The Judgment

Justice Common Sense sits quietly.

He looks at the accused.

Then at the messages.

Then at the timeline of unanswered follow-ups.

Finally, he looks at the phrase displayed before the Court.

I will get back to you.

The Judge speaks.

"The Court has heard the evidence."

"The phrase itself is not guilty."

"It is a perfectly reasonable expression."

"Sometimes we genuinely need time before answering."

"Sometimes we need information."

"Sometimes we need to think."

"Sometimes we simply cannot deal with something immediately."

The Judge pauses.

"That is not the offence."

"The offence begins when a statement of intention becomes a substitute for actual follow-up."

The gallery becomes quiet.

"If you need time..."

"Ask for time."

"If you need information..."

"Say that you need information."

"If you cannot respond today..."

"Say so."

"If you have no idea when you can respond..."

"Do not manufacture certainty merely to escape the present conversation."

The Judge looks towards the accused.

"And if you say you will get back to someone..."

"You should make a reasonable effort to actually get back to them."

He pauses.

"Because 'I will get back to you' is not a magic spell that makes the conversation disappear."

The gallery laughs.

"Order!"

The Judge continues.

"It is a bridge."

"And a bridge is useful only if you intend to cross it."

 

Verdict

The accused, "I Will Get Back to You," is hereby found:

NOT GUILTY of needing time.

NOT GUILTY of delaying a response when genuinely necessary.

NOT GUILTY of being unable to provide an immediate answer.

However...

GUILTY of creating an expectation without reasonable follow-through.

GUILTY of using intention as a substitute for communication.

And GUILTY of disappearing from conversations under the protection of a perfectly respectable sentence.

Sentence is hereby passed:

The phrase "I will get back to you" shall henceforth be accompanied by one of the following:

A genuine intention to return.

A reasonable timeframe.

An update if circumstances change.

Or, where appropriate...

An honest admission that you do not know when you can respond.

The following shall not constitute sufficient evidence of compliance:

Opening the message.

Thinking about replying.

Typing a response and deleting it.

Remembering the conversation at 11:47 p.m.

Telling yourself, "I will do it tomorrow."

Seeing the person's follow-up notification.

And certainly not...

"Sorry, just seeing this."

The Judge looks towards the accused.

"If you need time..."

"Take it."

"If you need clarity..."

"Ask for it."

"If you cannot commit..."

"Do not pretend to."

"But if you say..."

He pauses.

"I will get back to you."

"...then get back to them."

The Judge raises his gavel.

"Because a promise to return is still a promise..."

"...even when it is hidden inside a polite sentence."

Bang.

The Principle of the Court

"Intention is not follow-through, just as preparation was not movement."

"Case No. 017 taught us that intending to leave does not mean you are already on your way."

"Case No. 018 teaches us that intending to respond does not absolve you from responding."

"Words do not need to come with timestamps."

"But commitments should have some relationship with action."

"And if someone is waiting for your response..."

The Judge pauses.

"...do not make them become the reminder system for your own promise."

Court is adjourned.

Next Week Before This Honourable Court...

Case No. 019

The People v. "Do Not Disturb."

The prosecution alleges that the accused activated a perfectly legitimate phone setting...

...and then proceeded to use it as a shield against humanity.

The Defence maintains that "Do Not Disturb" is a technological feature, not a declaration of emotional unavailability.

The People intend to establish that the accused was unavailable for:

Calls.

Messages.

Notifications.

Friends.

Family.

And, in one particularly troubling instance...

A person standing directly beside him.

The Defence argues that the accused had every right to enjoy some peace.

The People intend to ask:

If you are truly unavailable...

...why did you somehow manage to watch the notification arrive?

And if you saw it...

...why did you turn the phone face down?

The Court will determine whether "Do Not Disturb" means:

"Please give me some quiet."

Or...

"I have seen your message, but I would like the Court to recognise my right to ignore it."

Proceedings continue next week.