I’m sure you are all aware of the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard case that has been extensively covered by the press, to the point where public opinion became largely polarised without any verdict necessary from the court itself. This rather terrifying sway of mass perception without the apparent need for any concrete evidence or legal process – fuelled by easy access to video tapes from the courtroom – got me thinking about what role the press has in a courtroom, and whether they should even be allowed inside court proceedings.
After doing a little research, I found that in India the press is considered to be important in terms of bringing awareness to the cases being tried in court – to make sure the public stays informed about key social issues. However, it is made abundantly clear that journalists are bound by ethical and legal restrictions that protect the accused from being wrongfully slandered by the public, and thereby potentially creating an unfair bias in court when it comes time for a final verdict. The press is not supposed to extrapolate on any information they receive or conduct their own investigation in an attempt to sway public opinion.
In the USA, cameras were allowed in courtrooms after much debate, with the opposition claiming that it could distract the participants in a trial, and even cause nervous fidgeting in the accused or anyone testifying, which could in turn create bias within the jury. Cameras were finally allowed in courtrooms due to the argument that they not only provide objective documentation of events, but also increase accountability of lawyers and judges, holding them at higher standards of caution and fairness so as to make sure that they pass the right verdict – because everyone will be able to see them, this makes for less room for unfair verdicts or neglect of evidence.
In theory, this makes sense, but we all know that in real life the circumstances on several occasions have been drastically different, with the press carelessly flouting any ethical or legal principle, often conducting their own investigations, and indulging in callous sensationalism while a human life hangs in the balance.
Take the case of Rhea Chakraborty, for example. She was in a relationship with Sushant Singh Rajput at the time of his suicide, and based on mere speculation was dragged to the ground by the press, who didn’t hesitate to use every misogynistic play possible to rip her apart – all with a complete lack of tangible evidence. Chakraborty spent a month in jail, and was accused of all manner of things from abetment, to overdosing Sushant Singh Rajput on his medications, sexual baiting, and even black magic. The press ruthlessly invaded her private life and held nothing back as they villainised her time and again with zero regard to the fact that there was no concrete evidence to support their claims, or that Rhea herself was being put through hell for a crime she was not convicted for.
This absolute disregard for a human life is nothing short of despicable – Chakraborty’s reputation has been seriously damaged and her career has stalled, all with no ethical or legal processes having been followed.
However, there are several people who are working ethically to shed light on important legal cases – such as Kim Kardashian, who has recently been deeply involved in judicial reform in the USA and has been working to reverse several wrongful convictions with the help of a team of lawyers. Kim Kardashian is arguably one of the most public people in the world, and yet her success in this particular area came not from her publicising her own opinions and sensationalising cases, but following process and legal protocol and only sharing information once she and her legal team were clear that they had the right information and knew what action could be taken. No attention mongering, slandering or villainisation whatsoever.
Unfortunately, that has not been so with the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard case. Media attention aside, what was truly the scariest part of this whole situation was the sheer speed at which social media – described as “the press on steroids” in an article I read – devoured the case and decided to pass judgement on the two people involved. I will not comment on the final verdict, but what scares me is how comfortable people are with dehumanising an individual, making hundreds of memes around this case, taking video footage from the courtroom to analyse every second according to their own opinions (based on no expertise whatsoever), and even profit off the immense difficulties that were being experienced by those actually taking part in the case – several people have had their TikTok and YouTube channels go viral simply by mocking participants in this case or commenting on it.
Needless to say, this is what does not sit well with my conscience. While public awareness is definitely important on social issues and justice, I personally feel it is not our place to play judge just because we can, and share our impulsive, unprofessional opinions with the world. And as for whether press should even be allowed inside courtrooms, the arguments for the same are valid, but it is going to take a lot more ethical execution for this to ever be morally sustainable.
It may seem harmless to comment on a case whose outcome will not affect your life at all, but if you were on the receiving end of the full force of the press and social media ruthlessly tearing you apart as you fought for justice in court, I’m pretty sure you would feel differently.
Works Cited
Kour, Rasleen. “Media Trail: Erosion of Ethical Journalism” Legal Service India. Web. < https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4155-media-trial-erosion-of-ethical-journalism.html > as seen on May 20th, 2022.
Spencer, Rachel. “Legal Ethics and the Media: Are the Ethics of Lawyers and Journalists Irretrievably at Odds?” Taylor & Francis Online. May 7th, 2015. Web. < https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5235/146072812801292764?journalCode=rlet20 > as seen on May 20th, 2022.
Pandey, Geeta. “Sushant Singh Rajput: Rhea Chakraborty on 'media trial' after Bollywood star's death” BBC News. August 28th, 2020. Web. < https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53932725 > as seen on May 20th, 2022.
NDTV Editors. “Rhea Chakraborty's Bail Order: What Supreme Court Told Anti-Drugs Agency” NDTV. March 18th, 2021. Web. < https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/rhea-chakrabortys-bail-order-what-supreme-court-told-anti-drugs-agency-ncb-2393627 > as seen on May 20th, 2022.
HT Editors. “Rhea Chakraborty has become quiet and withdrawn, time in jail ‘crushed her morale completely’: Rumi Jaffery” Hindustan Times. December 31st, 2020. Web. < https://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/rhea-chakraborty-has-become-quiet-and-withdrawn-time-in-jail-crushed-her-morale-completely-rumi-jaffery/story-ys91suUnbpFMwjFMoZ87AI.html > as seen on May 20th, 2022.
Strickland, Ruth Ann. “Cameras in the Courtroom” The First Amendment Encyclopaedia. Web. < https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/989/cameras-in-the-courtroom > as seen on May 20th, 2022.
Davis, N. “Television in Our Courts - The Proven Advantages, the Unproven Dangers” US Department of Justice. 1980. Web. < https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/television-our-courts-proven-advantages-unproven-dangers > as seen on May 20th, 2022.