This article is written by Bhavana Suragani.
Law acquires its legitimacy through its acceptance in the society; legislations that are unjust and arbitrary more often than not face resistance by the masses and are largely unsuccessful in their enforcement. The rise of new forms of communication in the past few decades have enabled easy methods of circulating news globally, public opinion depends largely on the way the facts are presented while broadcasting. ‘Because most of the public has little direct experience with the justice system, public knowledge and views of law and the legal system are largely dependent on media representations.’(Hans, Valarie P.1991)[1]. What the society presumes to be right regarding issues related to law and justice depends upon the media, through this the media has an indirect influence over the law. The media’s coverage of the justice system affects the way the people perceive it, with the rise of social networking giants such as Facebook, Instagram, twitter and others, public opinion can now be influenced in a much simpler way. News obtained through social media is not always legitimate, there is no system of checks and balances in place which ensures the validity of the content uploaded online which in turn has led to the spread of misinformation in many instances. As there is an absence of filters to separate facts from fiction, the media may be used as a tool for propaganda through spreading misinformation to gain support from the users to promote a certain agenda.[2] Media is an effective tool that can be used by anyone to gain public support to change certain laws, this may have a positive or a negative effect depending on different situations. The effects of media on law can be understood through four different cases.
By the end of 2014 more than half of the states in America have moved towards the legalization of marijuana, but the cannabis policy in Canada moved towards strengthening the laws on consumption of recreational weed during this time. Most of the Canadians supported the legalization of cannabis, to analyse the situation in the country Boyd and Carter scrutinized over two thousand newspaper articles published in the period of fifteen years (1995-2009), their analysis suggests that the media in order to alter the public opinion towards the drug the Canadian media constructively shifted its focus from its consumers to the producers, they have projected the producers as dangerous and threatening to families and communities. In order to criticize the marijuana growing operations they emphasised on its relations to the Asian and Vietnamese organised crime groups racializing the drug scene. The media repeatedly published articles demonising the individual users as well. ‘Drug prohibitions emerge in the context of drug scares.’ (Boyd, Crater.2015)[3] This paved the way for the conservative government in power in the 2000s to revise and adopt strict measures for punishment for possession, production or use of cannabis rather than calling for reforms of the cannabis policy.[4] Through the consistent manipulation of the people’s opinion by the media (on the advice of the government) towards marijuana over the span of fifteen years the Canadian government was able to pass stricter laws on the recreational use of weed without the public protesting for reforms, if the public opinion on the drug remained the same without being manipulated by the media the Canadian government would most likely have faced resistance and protests by the people.
In another instance, media more specifically social media networks like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and a lot of other such platforms were used in India to mobilise large number of people to go out on to the streets to protest against a biased citizenship bill which was passed in the parliament later on and turned into the Citizenship Amendment Act. These protests were largely led by the student community and could be organised within a few hours through the use of social media[5], the aim of these protests was to get the government to repeal the Citizenship Amendment Act as well as to avoid the implementation of the National Register of Citizens throughout the country. Music, poetry and videos of protests were shared on social media to kindle the spirit of solidarity and support a fellow citizen of their country. A lot of such protests were subject to police brutality, many times protesters were detained by the police disregarding the fact that such protests were peaceful and didn’t need to be controlled. Information regarding lawyers contact numbers, websites for donation of funds for the protests and other such things were uploaded online. Acknowledging the fact that social media was the most essential platform for organising such protests the government moved towards implementing an internet shutdown in some cities. In the first case of the Canadian cannabis policy, media was used by the government to change public opinion whereas in this case social media was used by the citizens to rebel against the government to do away with unjust laws. Although there hasn’t yet been any change in the laws after all of the protests, the importance of social media in gaining public support to reform laws can be realised through this situation.
Social media has been used in a similar ways in the United Kingdom in the year 2004 regarding the Gender Recognition Act 2004, through this act transgender people in the country have been given the right to change their gender legally by obtaining a gender recognition certificate, it practically didn’t make it mandatory for people to have a reassignment surgery before legally changing their gender. Once they are able to get hold of a GRC their gender could be changed in all governmental IDs like driving licence or passport. But since the time this Act came into force only 4,910 people have changed their gender, therefore the government reached out to the people for their opinion on reformation of the Act in 2018, it was then that the debate on social media began regarding the need for such an Act. The arguments on social media were not only restricted to the Gender Recognition Act but moved debates on the requirement of the Equality Act as well. ‘The Equality Act makes an allowance for objective justification. An example of this is in rape crisis centres, where a female-only space is created in the interest of safeguarding women using the facilities. Some trans people think this should be abolished, while some feminists argue that this policy should be strengthened.’(Hurst, 2019)[6] responding to this issue the government clearly stated that it focused on the reform of the Gender Recognition Act and are not seeking to amend the Equality Act “The consultation focuses on the Gender Recognition Act 2004. We are not proposing any amendments to the Equality Act 2010. […] Trans and non-binary people are members of our society and should be treated with respect.” Regardless of the government’s clear statement the arguments on social media remained mixed. This cannot be taken easily as it involves a person’s identity and legal rights, on social media the most common problem that was talked of was the issue with female only spaces. A trans activist Tara Wolf assaulted Maria Maclachlan at an event related to gender rights this incident enraged a lot of Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists who advocate the exclusion of trans people from female spaces. Most of the fight regarding this issue continues online with members from different groups insulting the others through texts and graphics. One of the other major incidents regarding this issue involved a group of women from the group Man Friday storming into a male only pool at Hampstead Health claiming to be men, saying that they identify as men by wearing fake beards to revolt against the current gender laws, pictures from this incident took over social media, ‘A thread on the forum Mumsnet titled “Gender Self Identity Law coming! MNQH and Mumsnetters: Time to pick a side” got over 1,000 messages in just two days.’(Hurst, 2019)[7] Social media was the main forum for people to discuss the necessity of the Act, the arguments and discussions over this issue have begun almost two years ago but neither the people nor the government have come to a consensus yet. The use of social media in this case and a lot of other cases has no doubt been useful but it is also because of such networking sites that people may take a very long time to reach a consensus regarding such issues with the increase in misinformation and the inability to separate real and fake news a lot of people have wrong assumptions and reach incorrect decisions. Social media in such instances increases anger and hatred among different groups and increases a sense of hostility among various communities, an easier way to reform the Act while considering the public opinion would be to hold a referendum of sorts but with the presence of social media such incidents are bound to take place.
Although there have been many protests and revolts in India as well as the United Kingdom regarding unnecessary legislations there has been no amendment made by either of the governments, in another similar incident in Ireland the Act was successfully changed by the government. The people in the country protested against the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Act 1983 which recognised the equal right of the pregnant women and the unborn child, an abortion was followed by a criminal penalty in 1861 but the eight amendment allowed abortion except in cases where the pregnant woman’s life was at risk. Through social media many claimed that an abortion should be an individual’s choice even when one’s life is at risk. Sarah Clarkin, head of social media for the Together for Yes group, targeted voters across Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. The campaigns reached millions of voters. In an interview with RTÉ, she explained: “Our whole strategy in Together for Yes is about equipping people to have conversations about the referendum and about why a Yes vote is very important for women.” (Hurst, 2019)[8] The top hashtag in Ireland at the time was #repealthe8th, after many protests from the people on social media or otherwise the government finally decided to hold a referendum to come to a collective decision. After the results of the referendum the government passed the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Bill 2018 to regulate abortions, even though this bill brought about a change it had its own flaws.
The use of media to protest against unjust laws may bring about a change in the legislations in many instances but when it comes to the use of media to bring a person to justice it has negative and positive repercussions. How a person is judged for his crimes depends on how the media portrays the situation in the case of Dimapur Lynching where Syed Sarifuddin Khan who was convicted for rape was dragged out of the Dimapur Central Prison by a mob of around 6000 people into the open ground and was lynched. Had the media given out blatant facts and focused on the main issue of him being lynched even after he was brought to justice the public would have remembered the incident for a longer period, they would also have empathized and sympathized with the victim. As the public focused on the fact that he was not particularly an innocent victim because that is mainly how the media reported him the incident was easily forgotten after a week.[9]
Trial proceedings are not independent of media influence either, the public forms an opinion on the case without proper evidence to suggest a person’s innocence or guilt, in cases where there is a jury trial the jury may very easily be influenced by the media to from quick and impulsive judgements which lead them to be biased throughout the trial proceedings. Media has also been used as a form of social justice in some cases. An example for this would be the #metoo movement where sexual harassment who have remained silent all along have come out to publically talk about their experiences to defame the accused online. Through public shaming it is expected that the career, family or reputation of the offender would be affected through negative publicity but this has its own limitations. #Metoo has given rise to a superficial, short-lived rearrangement of justice through an unprecedented deployment of shaming and publicity that do not address the structural problem of sexual misconduct. As Judith Butler recently put it, “whoever speaks is assumed to speak the truth”.(Pipyrou, 2018)[10] This way the movement may come off as a form of a mob rule which disregards the judicial process, moving away from the actual crime and focusing on the individual character.[11]
Different forms of media play a major role in influencing the formation, amendment or repealing of legislations, with the rise of social media its impact is more evident than it was ever before, along with this media also affects the way an offender is brought to justice. The effect of media may be for the better good but also can be very detrimental in some occasions. The independence of the judiciary and the media is essential to the effective functioning of the judicial system and to ensure justice for all. It is as Lord Wolf mentions in his article, the law, judiciary and media are in a forced marriage. As Article 6 of the ECHR provides, “In determining of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law”(Lord, 2020)[12]. While the media most often affects the formation of laws for the better good, it hinders the working effectiveness of the judiciary.
References
[1] HANS, VALERIE P., and JULIET L. DEE. “Media Coverage of Law: Its Impact on Juries and the Public.” American Behavioral Scientist 35, no. 2 (November 1991): 136–49.
[2] Cohen, Mark A. “Law In The Age Of Social Media.” forbes, November 27, 2016. https://www.forbes.com/sites/markcohen1/2016/11/27/law-in-the-age-of-social-media/#7fc25681db83.
[3] Meisel, Joshua S. Contemporary Sociology 44, no. 6 (2015): 778-80. Accessed May 17, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/43997307.
[4]Ibid.
[5] Rizwan, Ramsha. “How Has Social Media Helped Organise Protests Against CAA?” feminisminindia, January 15, 2020. https://feminisminindia.com/2020/01/15/social-media-protests-against-caa/.
[6] Elizabeth Hurst, “How Social Media Affects Law,” AllAboutLaw, February 5, 2019, https://www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/commercial-awareness/legal-spotlight/how-social-media-affects-law-.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Kurian, Anna, “Dimapur Lynching and the Impossibility of Remembering” Economic & Political Weekly, December 19 2015.
[10] Pipyrou, Stavroula. “#metoo is little more than mob rule vs #metoo is a legitimate form of social justice.” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 2018.
[11] Ibid.
[12] WOOLF, LORD. “SHOULD THE MEDIA AND THE JUDICIARY BE ON SPEAKING TERMS?” Irish Jurist (1966), New Series, 38 (2003): 25-33. Accessed May 18, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/44026524.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
