Justice and the rise of the virtual courtroom

By Hannah LeBor

How can justice survive in the era of virtual courtrooms?

Cancel culture has been around for a while, but since the rise of TikTok it has reached new bounds: influencing court cases. Many worry about the future of law due to the rise of AI, but fewer seem to acknowledge the present threats that digital platforms pose. Cancel culture can be described as the public shaming and mass withdrawal of support for a public figure, potentially ending their career due to a minor or alleged mistake. Initially, cancel culture rarely brought about issues extending beyond the fanbase of the public figure, but in recent years, cancel culture has influenced court cases and questioned the extent to which the right to a fair trial can co-exist with TikTok.

Viral consensus and legal judgement in Depp v. Heard 2022

One of the most to-hand examples of cancel culture impacting the justice system is the infamous case of Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard. This trial illustrates the shift in judgement in the digital age. The presumption of guilt or innocence is increasingly made on emotional resonance instead of evidence. From hashtags framing guilt or innocence, amateur “detectives” presenting their theories to body language “experts” analysing the defendent, social media, -predominantly TikTok, - shaped the verdict long before the court ever did.

In this case the plaintiff, Johnny Depp, sued the defendant, Amber Heard for defamation following an opinion article. In this article, Heard alleged that she was a victim of domestic abuse. Even though the article did not name Depp as her abuser directly, the latter proceeded to sue for defamation. Heard rebutted with a countersuit and the media exploded with arguably ill-intended excitement. Naturally, numerous people took to TikTok to share their opinions on the chain of events and legal proceedings. What might have begun as a viral common legal interest ended up “being dubbed as the first ‘trial by TikTok’” according to the BBC.

It seems like TikTok is increasingly taking on the role of a virtual courtroom, paralleling the justice system. Content creators present their case whilst the audience take on the role of the jury. The ultimate judge, however, is the algorithm, framing the narrative, deciding what evidence comes before the viewers and ultimately determining the verdict. The verdict of Depp v. Heard was largely in line with the social media narrative: Heard was found guilty of defamation on all three counts and won only one of her counter claims.

In the Depp v. Heard case the hashtag #JusticeForJohnnyDepp reached over 20 billion views in two months according to The Guardian. Content about the case overwhelmingly favoured Depp and videos often mocked or discredited Heard. Given the algorithm’s proliferation of content generating engagement, drama was rewarded, and legal education was put on the back burner. Traditional court reporters found their factual reporting overshadowed by edits, reaction videos and even memes, despite the case being about defamation and domestic violence. Said case study thoroughly illustrates the detrimental impact that TikTok is and has been having on the right to exercise fair trials. Justice demands evidence but TikTok demands entertainment, and the algorithm often seems to win.

The dangers of trial by algorithm

On the surface it can seem like social media is no danger to the justice system because it merely amalgamates reactions to trials and cases. Upon closer inspection, however, social media is indeed reshaping the legal world, potentially posing a real threat to the justice system. As a result, the following concerns naturally arise. Can witnesses feel safe when their testimonies are edited into memes? What happens when misinformation circulates faster than legal knowledge? How can this be pragmatically corrected? Whilst the courtroom is built on timely scrutiny and the presentation of clear arguments and facts, social media is built on short term, instant gratification and unfiltered emotional responses. There seems to be a clear imbalance between the virtual and real courtroom, between due process and overdue emotional release. Ultimately, justice can survive in the virtual age if we remember that emotional immediacy does not hold the same weight as a rational and evidence-based arguments do.

Edited by Artyom Timofeev

Image sources: https://www.logo.wine/logo/TikTok