Depp v Heard Netflix documentary exposes major problem with social media

The Depp v Heard documentary became the number one show in the world over the weekend – and it highlights a major problem.

The Depp v Heard documentary became the number one show in the world over the weekend, recapturing our obsessive gaze on the doomed relationship of two Hollywood A-listers.

Surprisingly, I feature prominently in it.

While this show is very titillating to watch, it shines a much-needed spotlight on the impact of social media and how it could affect the outcomes of our judicial system.

More specifically, it should be a wake up call for all of us to question who we follow on social media, and how their so-called “expertise” could shape our own beliefs.

I am an Australian criminal defence lawyer who spends his days working for the little guy, and yet the producers seemed to think of me sufficiently as a voice of reason and impartiality. I am glad they did so, because that is the role I wanted to play – an educator and not an advocate.

TikTok is my platform of choice and, as a criminal lawyer with over a decade’s experience, my schtick is translating complicated legal concepts into language that is easy for the layman to understand.

My followers seek opinion on news and current events, in 30 seconds or less. I pride myself on sharing views backed by legitimate experience and being upfront about the boundaries of my expertise.

This trial was no different – I offered insights based on years of legal practice, in and out of the courtroom, as to why it was unfolding the way it was and what I believed the outcome would be.

Sydney lawyer Jahan Kalantar predicted Johnny Depp would triumph ‘even though defamation is incredibly difficult to prove’. Picture: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Without ever practising in the US legal system, I successfully predicted Johnny Depp would triumph even though defamation is incredibly difficult to prove. How could such a bold prediction be made before closing arguments? By virtue of the new type of litigation that was premiering on our screens.

There’s no mystery as to why the world became so captivated with this trial – the dirty laundry of celebrity is rarely hashed out for the world to see, much less presented with evidence and meticulously unpacked in a courtroom for judge, jury and everyone else.

While this is titillating to watch for some, there are real world ramifications from the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial that we should be aware of, regardless of whether you’re a star in La La Land or a darling of your local pub in outback Australia.

Whether you’re Team Johnny, Team Amber or somewhere in between, I believe this trial should be a major wake up call. You should question everyone you follow on social media – especially if their viewpoints are outrageous – as there may be other influences at play.

Keep in mind many of the “experts” commenting in this trial were people with no experience in this space whatsoever. You would be wise not to put much stock in what they have to say.

This case, undoubtedly, set a precedent for high-stakes litigation concerning reputation and, arguably, a masterclass in public relations strategy. Law and PR firms globally observed its handling, taking notes for future tactics, wherever that might lead. As the pioneer of its kind, the Depp-Heard case foreshadows an evolving landscape of legal battles. This is the first trial like this, but it will not be the last.

However, the heart of the matter lies in whether this amalgamation of public perception and the legal sphere is a positive development.

‘As the pioneer of its kind, the Depp-Heard case foreshadows an evolving landscape of legal battles’. Picture: Steve Helber/Pool/AFP

Granting direct access to the justice system enhances transparency and empowerment. Yet, the conundrum arises when misinformation contaminates outcomes, jeopardising a system built on evidence and impartiality. The balance between public engagement and the sanctity of justice becomes paramount.

Millions of people around the world logged in to follow the Depp v Heard case as it happened, but most of the public relied upon the countless pieces of content churned out across the social media landscape by seasoned creators and novices alike.

The trial was consumed as if it were no different to movies the main characters would usually star in, critiquing their “performance” and that of the supporting cast – lawyers, witnesses, experts – in real time. Some of this social media commentary varied from the insensitive to the misinformed, and to the outright deranged.

The need to achieve the above balance becomes urgent when people begin to accept and believe information from sources that they like rather than sources that are credible.

This is not necessarily a new problem, but one that is growing exponentially in the Gen Z age with unfettered access to influential content and ill-informed opinion driving alignment with people who we are drawn to or inspired by rather than people we should believe.

In my line of work, we rely upon experts to give evidence to a jury.

Over the years I have found that not only does the expert need to know the discourse, but they must also be engaging, articulate and able to deliver complex concepts in a simple fashion to the jury. It isn’t enough for them to have a brilliant mind; they need to be able to communicate that brilliance in a way that is neither disconcerting nor arrogant.

Sydney lawyer Jahan Kalantar (centre) featured in the doco.

It is a hard line to walk. People expect courtrooms to be exciting and sexy, much like TV shows, but the reality can be disappointing when they discover it is more like your local bank branch. The glorification of the experts, and memes that followed, from the Depp v Heard trial don’t promise to diminish this supposition.

Beyond likability of those who play a part in the justice process, the 24-hour news and social media cycle that has permeated our lives has created a new risk – the risk of a person being influenced unintentionally.

Can we truly believe that the most well-intentioned juror can avoid everything relating to the most-watched story in the world? Even with the threat of criminal sanctions hanging over them, the constant play on our attention is hard to resist and even harder to avoid.

Does this make the judgement unsafe? Not in my opinion, but it is something that we should all consider as we move forward.

In this modern age, the imagery of Lady Justice blindfolded, holding scales, underscores the timeless pursuit of objectivity. We should cherish this image and be proud that Lady Justice is keeping open ears rather than scrolling mindlessly, liking posts from unreliable sources, closing herself off to the full story and simply siding with the person who has more followers.

Jahan Kalantar is a lawyer from Sydney and managing partner of the firm Executive Law Group.