Trial by Social Media

Not Guilty. What used to be a verdict determined by an impartial jury, has now become the task of Social Media, most specifically by Generation Z.

In a day and age where opinions are broadcasted in a matter of seconds, the mere clicking and pressing of the "Send" button changes lives unbeknownst to both the sender and receiver. While it used to be that the court of law was responsible for complex findings of facts, this has since transitioned to Social Media. One may be found not guilty in the courtroom, but it is public relations and notoriety amongst Gen Z that decides fate.

Trial used to mean that one could receive a fresh start and a new beginning either post-conviction or after being found not guilty/liable. Though, as we have progressed through the 21st century, the eyes of social media have become more important than the members of the jury. The burden of proof in a criminal court is "beyond a reasonable doubt", however, an argument can be made that the verdict lies in the hands of the TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, and Twitter users.

With this, it does not imply that the opinion of Social Media is to determine what will forever be on one's criminal/civil litigation history. Rather, it is to hint that seeking fair "justice" now has a dual purpose. Where one had to initially plead to a jury for a just ruling, it must now include the rest of the world through the mind of the social network.

Americans have long been fascinated by courtroom proceedings and high-profile trials in both the criminal and civil division. The Depp v. Heard defamation trial, Kyle Rittenhouse, Alex Murdaugh, Alex Jones, Jussie Smollett, Nikolas Cruz, and Darrell Brooks are just a few of the names that have had their trials publicized through the presence of courtroom cameras within the past 3 years. One could easily skim over those names and immediately recognize both the name and cause of action of the trial.

This leads Attorneys to serve a dual purpose that is unfamiliar to them, counsel for the record and public relations manager. While their priority focus is the trial, it is how that attorney represents and portrays the defendant/their client that will ultimately lead to judgment. 6-12 jurors might decide a verdict, but millions watching online are the foreperson that truly speaks the verdict. While one might avoid a sentence/judgment, social media will tend to hold another and separate finding.

A primary example of this is the Depp v. Heard trial that occurred in the Summer of 2022, where Johnny Depp sued Amber Heard for defamation relating to a Washington Post op-ed. This trial began with Depp's legal team having to prove that Heard's written accounts of domestic abuse were false, an accusation that would be certain to affect the public's views on such a prominent figure. However, with the proper direct examination and presentation of evidence, the Plaintiff's attorneys made Johnny Depp a relatable and charismatic figure on the stand.

It can be agreed that Depp's attorneys had an excellent line of questioning, but one must begin to understand whom it was pleading to. The cameras. While there was a jury right next to the witness stand, the real jurors were us, the average citizen watching the livestream on YouTube. So much so, that content creators were born from their commentating on this trial, establishing what was known as America's obsession with the courtroom.

It is no longer?12 Angry Men, but rather billions of curious individuals.