The court of public opinion
When legal battles feel more like entertainment than a reality
The court of law is a place of judgment; where fate is determined and punishment is dealt. But it is also a place where you might see someone leaping over the bench at a judge.
Over years, our image of the courtroom has distorted from one of order to that of a stage set for drama. This change can be partially attributed to the televised trials and the viral spread of clips from court proceedings on social media.
The first major televised case was that of O.J. Simpson in the 90s. His celebrity status as an NFL player and actor prior to the murder charges captured the public’s attention. Media outlets jumped on the chance to broadcast the proceedings of the case, and audiences were glued to their screens. As the drama unfolded in front of millions of viewers, the precedent for courtroom coverage was set.
Legal proceedings are a gold mine for content, especially when it comes to celebrity cases. We put public figures on a pedestal so it becomes shocking, and even thrilling, to watch them judged. Due to their wealth and status, their cases are usually far removed from our own lives and realities, allowing us to indulge in the entertainment without concern for personal consequences.
With celebrities on trial, it’s all about the drama, not the facts. A prime example of this is the Johnny Depp v Amber Heard defamation case. With cameras in the courtroom, every moment was clipped, taken out of context, and made viral. The more outrageous the scene, the faster it would spread, often becoming a meme. The case quickly became a battleground of public opinion, drowning out the truth. The majority expressed open support for Depp, vilifying and ridiculing Heard. Rather than engaging critically with the presented evidence or doing further research, many social media users and corporations simply hopped on the bandwagon.
Public reaction to Depp v Heard revealed our love of judgement. Celebrity trials are the new legal reality TV where we get to play the role of Judge Judy. The digital age has only amplified our instinct to judge, giving anyone a platform to make their views and opinions known.
Without an evidentiary basis, this whole proceeding devolves into glorified gossip. Gossip can be useful—it defines societal norms and gauges public opinion of right or wrong, discouraging people from negative behaviours. However, when gossip becomes a court of public opinion, it leaves little room for fact and true accountability.
Social media has not only amplified this, but given rise to a new form: memes. Any facial expression, comment, or reaction can be turned into a punchline, no matter its real context and legal value. Rather than focusing on the “plot” of the trial, people zero in on the “characters” in it.
Take Gwyneth Paltrow’s ski collision trial. The public was less concerned with liability and more with Paltrow’s deadpan behaviour. Her now-famous quote, “I lost half a day of skiing,” and the fact that she counter sued for only $1 only added to the unserious perception of the case. Then there’s Cardi B’s recent assault trial. The internet went crazy for her sassy attitude, exaggerated facial expressions, and iconic outfits, comparing the whole proceeding to an SNL skit. After winning the trial, Cardi B capitalized on this publicity by releasing court cover variations of her new album Am I the Drama? Even “serious” cases are not immune to being memeified. The murder charges faced by Luigi Magione didn’t stop people from thirsting over his mugshots or admiring his music taste.
With growing interest in legal pop culture, we have begun to move away from true crime, which has long held our collective fascination. We are drawn in by the motivations of criminals and captivated by the thrill of watching a real-life mystery unfold. But recently, there has been a shift of public intrigue to courtroom drama. Much like high-profile crime cases, celebrity trials offer spectacle, but without the fear factor, making these cases feel safer to engage with. We allow ourselves to judge freely and unapologetically since celebrities, elevated by status and wealth, seem distant from our everyday lives. Their legal battles feel more like entertainment than reality.
The rise of popularity of courtroom drama calls for a deeper reflection of our perception and interaction with the justice system. Are we undermining its purpose by not taking it seriously? Are we more invested in the drama than the legal complexities? And most importantly, are we directing our attention to the right places?
The justice system already leaves much to be desired, often failing marginalized communities. We spotlight celebrity drama and “funny moments” while overlooking cases not deemed “noteworthy” enough to capture the media’s attention. If the court of public opinion is going to be louder than the court of law, we must ask ourselves: what are we really advocating for?
