In the digital age, media and social media play a pivotal role in shaping public perception, especially when it comes to sensitive topics like gender-based violence. At the forefront of this conversation is Jennifer Robinson, a renowned human rights lawyer who took the stage at SXSW Sydney to delve into the impact of media representation on gender violence. Through her keynote and subsequent conversation with Network 10 journalist Narelda Jacobs, Robinson explored the role of free speech, defamation laws, and social media in either amplifying or silencing the voices of women who experience violence.
Robinson, whose high-profile cases include defending Julian Assange and Amber Heard in her UK trial against Johnny Depp, addressed the alarming rates of gender-based violence in Australia and globally. “One in three women will experience physical violence in their lifetime, and one in five will face sexual violence,” she stated, adding that Indigenous women, women with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ individuals are disproportionately affected. These statistics, she noted, are “shocking, but what’s even more shocking is that the figures are only getting worse”.
She explained that the media’s role in highlighting these issues—or failing to do so in many cases—has become more pronounced in recent years, particularly with the rise of the #MeToo movement. Robinson emphasised that while the movement helped bring visibility to gender-based violence, it also sparked a backlash, with perpetrators increasingly using the law as a tool to silence women. Defamation suits, non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), and legal intimidation have become weapons in the arsenal of the powerful, preventing women from speaking out and, in many cases, discouraging journalists from reporting on these stories.
Defamation Laws as a Tool for Silencing
One of the most significant challenges faced by survivors of gender violence is the threat of defamation lawsuits. Robinson pointed out how, in the wake of #MeToo, powerful individuals have weaponised defamation laws to stifle public discussion of violence and abuse. She referred to the case of Stocker v. Stocker in the United Kingdom, where a woman who publicly discussed her ex-partner’s history of violence was sued for defamation. Despite providing evidence, including police reports that noted red marks around her neck, the courts ruled against her because the judge argued there was no evidence of intent to kill, which was necessary to prove strangulation under the legal definition. As Robinson recalled, the court had decided that “his intention was to silence her, not to kill her”.
Robinson used this case to illustrate the broader trend of how defamation laws, which were initially designed to protect reputations, are now being used to prevent women from speaking about their experiences of domestic violence. “Far too often, women come into our offices with stories of being sued simply for telling the truth,” she explained. The chilling effect of these lawsuits has deterred many women from speaking out, knowing that they could face years of expensive litigation.
In Australia, the situation is no different. Robinson cited the case of Brittany Higgins, whose decision to speak publicly about being allegedly raped by a colleague in Parliament led to sweeping legislative and workplace reforms. However, Higgins has been entangled in multiple defamation lawsuits since speaking out, with more than 14 cases arising from her testimony alone.
The Higgins case gained significant media attention after she revealed that she had been allegedly sexually assaulted by Bruce Lehrmann, a colleague in Parliament House. The case sparked a national conversation about workplace safety, consent, and the treatment of women in politics. Robinson emphasised that Higgins’ courage to speak out, despite the overwhelming backlash, led to public protests and resulted in new policies aimed at better-protecting women in Parliament and other workplaces. However, the legal and social costs of her decision were enormous. Higgins endured a highly publicised criminal trial, followed by a defamation case that forced her to testify about the details of her rape in court, broadcast live to over 70,000 people.
Robinson pointed out that these legal proceedings were in many ways more invasive than a criminal trial, where protections for survivors, such as limiting public access to testimony, are typically in place. “What message does this send to women who are considering speaking out?” Robinson asked, underscoring the impact these cases have on discouraging survivors from coming forward.
This legal backlash is not only silencing women but also impacting journalism. Robinson noted that many media outlets, particularly smaller publications, simply do not have the legal budgets to defend defamation claims. As a result, important stories about gender-based violence are spiked, never making it to print.
The Role of Social Media: A Double-Edged Sword
Social media platforms have revolutionised the way we communicate and share stories, but they have also complicated discussions around gender violence. On the one hand, movements like #MeToo have gained significant traction through platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok, providing survivors with a space to share their experiences and find solidarity. “The legacy of #MeToo has made gender-based violence more visible”.
However, social media is also a breeding ground for misogyny, victim-blaming, and harassment. Robinson discussed the high-profile defamation case between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard as a prime example of how social media can distort public perception. In the UK, a court ruled that Depp had been violent toward Heard on at least 12 occasions, including instances of sexual violence. However, the subsequent trial in the US, broadcast live and followed by millions on social media, painted a starkly different picture.
“What we saw online during that trial was a wave of misogyny,” Robinson remarked. “Everyone seemed to have an opinion—Team Johnny or Team Amber—without actually looking at the facts.” Robinson, who represented Heard in the UK trial, found it disheartening to see how social media trivialised the serious allegations of domestic violence, reducing the case to a spectacle of public entertainment. This online frenzy not only harmed Heard’s reputation but also sent a damaging message to other survivors: that speaking out could result in ridicule, harassment, and vilification on a global scale.
The social media discourse surrounding high-profile cases like these can discourage survivors from seeking help, fearing that they, too, will be subjected to public scrutiny and disbelief. “Neither Amber nor Johnny will ever hear what you had to say online,” she stated, “but the woman you know who hasn’t spoken out about her experience might,” Robinson explained.
Media Representation and Its Cultural Impact
Beyond social media, traditional media also plays a crucial role in shaping societal attitudes toward gender violence. Robinson criticised the tendency of some outlets to “sensationalise” cases of domestic and sexual violence, often focusing on the courtroom drama rather than the broader issues at hand. “When media coverage trivialises violence against women, it sends a message that these stories aren’t important,” she said. This, in turn, perpetuates a culture where violence against women is normalised, and survivors are discouraged from coming forward.
Robinson called for a more responsible and nuanced approach to media coverage of gender-based violence. She argued that journalists and editors have a duty to report on these issues in a way that respects the dignity of survivors and sheds light on the systemic nature of the problem. “If we can’t talk about the extent of the problem, how can we ever hope to address it?” she asked.
Her recent book, How Many More Women, delves deeper into this issue in detail, exploring how defamation laws, media representation, and social media combine to create a culture of silence around gender violence. Robinson made clear that the right to free speech is not just about the ability to speak out—it’s about equality and justice. “We need to protect women’s ability to speak about their experiences of violence,” she said. “It’s a matter of public interest because if we can’t understand the scope of the problem, how can governments make policy or properly fund solutions?”
As Robinson’s keynote highlighted, the intersection of media, social media, and the legal system has created significant barriers for women who seek to speak out about gender-based violence. The weaponisation of defamation laws, combined with the often toxic culture of social media, has led to an environment where survivors are silenced, either by legal intimidation or the fear of public backlash.
In the impassioned keynote, Robinson called on both the media and the legal system to do better. She urged journalists to continue reporting on these issues despite the risks and for lawmakers to reform defamation laws that are currently being used to suppress free speech. “We need to change the culture around this and create a safer space for women to speak out without fear of legal or social repercussions,” she concluded.
