08/27/2026
The Court of Public Opinion
Let’s face it, our life is digitized. With the proliferation of technology, we are in constant and unfettered communication with a vast network of people, businesses, and AI – smart devices, messaging, apps, email, social media. It has never been so easy to share a thought with an audience. We used to describe the speedy spread of gossip and inflammatory rhetoric with reference to wildfires, but that metaphor is now as outdated as rotary dial phones, landlines and fax machines. We are in the “blink of an eye” or “speed of light” information era.
This ease and speed of communication has created a hostile environment for civility and thoughtfulness, and fertile ground for sharing thoughts and ideas that are base, reactive, inconsiderate, mean-spirited, defamatory, unchecked, and in some cases criminal. Not all online content is negative, but the digital world has created space for a lot of unproductive and negative expression.
Our courts may leave much to be desired, but in theory they are a judicial system that affords parties a dispute resolution process that is “due” and “fair”. The system is built upon the principle of the “rule of law,” which rejects features of historically lawless societies such as lynch mobs, stocks and pillories, public hangings, whippings and executions. A civilized society doesn’t stone people or burn them at the stake. There are rules, and if one person is aggrieved by someone else’s violation of a rule, they can plead their cases to a judge who will decide who is right and dispense justice without turning punishment into a public spectacle.
I’m a lawyer, so I have literally and figuratively bought into this system. The problem is that this system of justice feels inaccessible to many people. Sometimes a potential client won’t hire me because I have told them they don’t have a case. Other times I have told them they don’t have a case worth paying me to pursue on their behalf. Litigation has gotten expensive and that makes it more out of reach for the average consumer than ever before. It’s also a slow process – the legal system is the opposite of instant gratification.
So now, more than ever, aggrieved individuals who are unable or unwilling to access our judicial system almost instinctively resort to the court of public opinion which, because of digitization, is universally accessible, inexpensive (free!), and provides almost instant gratification from friends and strangers alike who enthusiastically jump on almost any bandwagon they can find to validate whatever grievance is being aired.
I see it online everyday. Yesterday on NextDoor someone in my neighborhood posted “He should be kicked off UVA football….” I didn’t read the post, but what the heck? It pains me to see a post with pictures of a skinny horse being offered as proof that some barn owner is “clearly abusive” and to be avoided. “Warning” posts, like “stay away from this breeder”, or “stay away from this trainer,” are equally common place and equally upsetting. And that’s the point – the message is intended to be upsetting.
I also get a lot of calls from people who have been “targeted” online, seeking protection from the online lynch mob and begging for help to repair what they perceive to be damage to their reputation. They don’t like hearing that I can’t help them. But trying to practice law in the court of public opinion is pointless because no one can rationalize with a lynch mob. For that reason, I also discourage victims of such attacks from responding online.
I discourage clients and potential clients from airing their grievances on social media not just because they may inadvertently expose themselves to actual liability for defamation, but because communicating anything with defamatory intent is short sighted and socially problematic. Why? It’s bullying, and just because you can incite a mob to take your side doesn’t mean you should.
However wronged you may feel, bullying makes YOU the bad guy. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Our sport is currently operating in space where bullying behavior is not only discouraged, but sanctionable. And lynch mobs are notoriously impossible to control. Even when it is labeled as a “PSA” or warning, the deliberate publication of a (one-sided) statement about a matter in which one person is portrayed as the victim of another’s wrongdoing is tainted by defamatory intent and fraught with peril. Bullying is neither defensible nor excusable, and dressing it up like a crossing guard doesn’t make it socially acceptable. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then guess what?
Public shaming is not a legitimate form of self-help. No one likes a bully (except other bullies).
Videographic illustration, for your entertainment:
English Subtitles