The Sylvan public opinion debate considered the following motion:
The court of public opinion has too much power.
The debate took place on Monday 2nd October. Conor Scott proposed the motion and Hui Wang opposed it.
The proposition arguing that the court of public opinion has too much power
The proposer opened by stating that public opinion is not a court. Jonny Depp lost his career due to accusations from Amber Heard, because people believed he beat her. He had to go to civil court and for the public to see it in order to exonerate himself. Kevin Spacey – I thought he committed the crimes. The media suggested he had done it, yet he was acquitted on all nine counts. His career ended based on public judgement. Justice for Ellie, another example, she got eight years in prison.
The proposer continued
When public opinion takes the decision, inner evil can surface. We have the capacity to sway each other – we need to have facts and evidence first. Take the case of Claudius versus Cicero in ancient Rome. Claudius assassignated Cicero’s character through graffitti etc. An echo with Trump, he said to go to the Capitol yet covered himself. If the court of public opinion rules, people die. People don’t think before drawing conclusions.
The opposition against the court of public opinion debate motion
The court of public opinion is not a judicial court, it means when the whims of the crowd decide. What does too much power mean? Three areas: security (a safe world), finance (livelihoods) and rules and regulations (caring about the general public). The proposer cited several examples. Not only celebrities, also employees of large companies such as Twitter have got their job back due to public opinion.
The opposer continued
Too much power rests with three global presidents of the US, China and Russia. On finance, the high net worth and offshore assets have too much power. Governments overstep the bounds of their power. The court of public opinion can sway people’s opinions. True power rests with politicians, the aristocracy and tech moguls. Such as the Sackler family who own Purdue Pharma, who pushed the deadly drug Oxycontin. They never faced conviction and still have billions – true power.
Floor speeches from the audience of the public opinion debate
This alternative system of justice means a good story has more weight than the law. Underdogs benefit from sympathy. Loss of reputation remains the main sanction of this court. How much is too much power? If the court sides with the correct side, that represents a positive outcome, but on the opposite result it represents too much power. Trump’s campaign bus comment about women that leaked – public opinion opposed it, yet he still won the election. A pharma company raised the price of a drug by $100s, it caused an outrage, yet they got away with it. Not too much power.
Public opinion can serve as a useful supplement to the law, such as in #metoo. Innocent until proven guilty – rubbish. Cancel culture hasn’t stopped J.K. Rowling. The outrage machine of Facebook, TikTok and GB news. Russell Brand may make more money from the latest outrage. Can we do anything about it? Dictatorships have closed courts, we have public media. The people cannot suspend judgement. Is there such a court? Climate change thinking faces no opposition. Can we actually judge Epstein or Prince Andrew based on available evidence – in some cases, yes. Dictators don’t face harm from opinion. Small groups and algorithms drive the opinions.
Public opinion can serve the public good in some cases, it does have power. Trump’s actions outraged the US public, yet he still won. Climate change: not enough change. All of you must define too much power. We want society to have safety, financial security and rules and regulations. Do we really have power through opinion? Those in power can use it.
The proposer’s closing speech
A nuanced subject with many opinions. Not everyone can act as a journalist and investigate facts, and this leads to swaying opinions. Black dog beasts can be summoned up to cause harm. Jonny Depp lost his career without a criminal case. To sway a vote, a lot has to happen, without due process. George Washington disliked the party system due to a lack of independent thought. The beast brings out the worst in us.
Result: the public opinion debate motion did not carry
In the final vote, the Sylvans concluded through the debate that the court of public opinion does not have too much power.
See information on other Sylvan debates here.
