THE trial of legendary US entertainer Bill Cosby begins tomorrow and I’m dreading it. Social media will be awash with theories, opinions and the harshest judgements you’ll ever read. The women alleging sexual assault against Cosby will face their own trial by social media; focus will be on their behaviour, their motivations, their culpability, and much less on questions of alleged wrongdoing on Cosby’s part.
Thankfully, most of us believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Cosby deserves a fair trial, and his accusers deserve an environment where they feel safe and supported to take the action they’ve taken.
The justice system should take care of the rest. And in a perfect world it would, but when it comes to rape and sexual violence cases it’s not that simple. UK conviction rates are notoriously low and we hear horror stories about how the system deals with victims.
Organisations like Rape Crisis do wonderful work in supporting women and advocating for improvements in the law, and it’s a long, hard slog for them. Yet there are numerous examples of how social media, through its apparent influence on mass opinion, is undoing much of the good work charities have done in changing attitudes towards sexual violence, particularly against women, which must be understood within the frame of power structures and societal dominance of men. This is not something easily explained in 140 characters. Rather, social networks like Twitter are far more suited to outdated soundbites that prey on people’s prejudices.
Social media is like entering a time machine and travelling back towards attitudes I thought had become more or less extinct. In my younger years I was confident that scourges like racism and misogyny were a dying thing of the past, existing only within small bubbles of thought that most people considered to be a bit mad.
But you only have to look at the case of footballer Ched Evans to see that it doesn’t take much to get the engine on that time machine going. Social media is a cesspit whenever the issue of his rape case comes up.
Evans was recently cleared of rape after having been originally convicted in 2012. The prosecution argued that Evans’s alleged victim was unable to consent to sex due to alcohol consumption and the justice system agreed. However, on appeal, Evans’s conviction was quashed and he was subsequently found not guilty at a retrial of the case, although he didn’t deny he’d had sex with the alleged victim.
At the very least, anyone following the saga should have understood that the case had highlighted how poorly understood the issue of consent is, and a decent conversation about that could have ensued. Instead, Evans’s accuser found herself in what I can only imagine is the depths of hell. After being named on social media and hounded by bullies, she was forced to change her name and move location several times to protect herself.
It was a high-profile case, but the attitudes it highlighted are not unusual, and the Cosby case will inevitably prompt similar pond life to emerge. If it wasn’t hard enough before for women to speak out about sexual violence, it’s terrifying now.
The big problem with social media is that nobody really knows what to do about it. Abuse happens on such a mass scale, usually perpetrated by anonymous trolls, and the law finds it difficult to get a handle on it. This leaves women vulnerable and unprotected in a way that would never be tolerated by judges should it appear on newspaper pages.
On social media, everyone is a publisher, but the means to hold users to account doesn’t adequately exist. Questions arise around free speech, restriction and control, but when one person’s free speech not only hampers another’s, but may actually silence victims of crime, at what point will society finally agree to step in?
We accept that such laws and regulations are essential within general society to enable freedom of expression but prevent its exploitation for harm, so why do we keep allowing anonymous trolls to dictate the free-speech-police narrative on social media? It’s time we prioritised the vulnerable in our society instead of the cowards.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel