America’s justice system is built on a clear idea: A person is innocent until proven guilty. But in everyday life, online and offline, that idea feels weaker than it used to be. People are judged long before evidence is available, and public opinion often forms before anyone reads more than a headline. This shift is happening in the way Americans get information, react to it, and share it, and it’s also affecting courtrooms.
Just how influential is public opinion? Can it really damage someone’s career or reputation without facts to back up accusations? In 2014, Sherry Chen, a National Weather Service hydrologist, was arrested and accused of espionage. In 2015, the charges were dropped. But she had already been fired and labeled a traitor online. Years later, a federal judge ruled that her firing had been a “gross injustice” and ordered her reinstatement, but the damage had been done. Even after being cleared, people still suspected she’d been guilty of “something.”
In 1996, Richard Jewell, a security guard, found a bomb during the Olympics. The FBI leaked that he was a “person of interest” and the media made him a prime suspect. He was harassed and portrayed as a domestic terrorist even though there wasn’t any evidence. The real bomber was caught and Jewell was cleared, but his life had been disrupted and people still believed he was involved somehow.
Accusations, unfortunately, spread faster than evidence and the public forms a verdict before investigations can conclude. The damage it does to the accused is, in many cases, life-altering because being cleared for something is not the same as being restored, and reputations collapse instantly, but rebuild slowly – if ever.
Guilty Until Proven Innocent – Public Opinion Drives the Narrative
A major part of the problem is how news spreads. In recent years, researchers found that people share articles without reading them, which means headlines and emotional reactions shape judgment more than facts. A study published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour of more than 35 million Facebook posts found that more than 75% of news links were shared without users clicking on them first. “[The results are] quite telling as well as alarming,” the authors said. “This could potentially explain why it is so common for misinformation to spread so quickly via social media.”
The University of Florida’s College of Journalism and Communications said people are “spreading misinformation with careless sharing.” When people react based on a headline alone, it becomes easy for accusations to spread before verification. And because emotional content spreads faster than calm, factual information, outrage often becomes the public’s first “verdict.”
The Nature Human Behaviour study suggested society is in too a “rushed” a mode to take the time to read, and especially research. “One reason for [this] … could be the information overload in personal and social media feeds, putting pressure on online users to be expedient and thereby leading them to rely on simple, often superficial, cues,” the study authors wrote. What happens then is the social media user feels more knowledgeable than they really are about scientific information and politics, the study explained.
“It was a big surprise to find out that more than 75% of the time, the links shared on Facebook were shared without the user clicking through first,” said corresponding author S. Shyam Sundar, Evan Pugh University Professor and the James P. Jimirro Professor of Media Effects at Penn State. “I had assumed that if someone shared something, they read and thought about it, that they’re supporting or even championing the content. You might expect that maybe a few people would occasionally share content without thinking it through, but for most shares to be like this? That was a surprising, very scary finding.”
Research shows that emotion plays a powerful role in shaping what people believe. A 2025 political psychology study reported by PsyPost found that emotional reactions to candidates had more influence on voter decisions than policy positions. The study’s author, Ching-Hsing Wang, an associate professor at National Cheng Kung University, explained that the findings show “emotions carry sufficient weight to influence voting behavior across the electorate, implying that campaigns that build emotional connections may be more persuasive than those relying solely on policy arguments.”
All of this creates a culture where people often assume guilt first. The legal principle of waiting for evidence clashes with the fast, emotional pace of online life. A Utah Law Review article about “TikTok detectives” warned that social media investigations can cause “irreversible harm” to people who are falsely accused.
When accusations spread emotionally and without verification, people begin treating them as truth. Even when an accusation is debunked, corrections rarely reach as many people or move as quickly as the original claim. The National Law Review wrote: “Social media’s influence on American society carries major implications for the public’s perception of current events. With headlines reaching millions of consumers within minutes, public outrage over racially charged crimes, instances of alleged police misconduct, and other hot-button topics may result in protests, riots, and strikes among communities nationwide.”
This creates a new burden for the accused. Instead of accusers proving wrongdoing, they must work to prove innocence in the public eye. That flips the entire concept of due process. It is extremely difficult to disprove a claim once it spreads. It’s even harder in an environment where anger and shock travel farther than facts or nuance.
Does Social Media Affect Juries?
“[M]embers of the jury are responsible for remaining fair and impartial, avoiding external influence, protecting confidentiality, preserving the integrity of the trial process, and respecting judicial authority,” National Law Review said. “Round-the-clock press releases, viral posts, and news updates often relay details of high-profile criminal trials that were previously disclosed throughout the trial process.”
An article on the New York State Bar Association website explains how social media definitely has an impact on juries. It mentions how some jurors googled the accused and the case before ever hearing any of the testimony.
The legal presumption of innocence still exists. But culturally, America is drifting toward assuming guilt first and sorting truth out later. If the country continues to reward outrage over accuracy, the risk is that public judgment, not evidence, becomes the deciding force in people’s reputations and lives.
