“I like it in the city when two worlds collide. You get the people and the government, everybody taking different sides. Shows that we ain’t gonna stand shit, shows that we are united.”
– Adele, Hometown Glory
The increasing prevalence of hashtag usage on social media domains has ushered in a new era of activism. Hashtags used on Twitter, Instagram, and among other social media networks connect trending topics in a centralized location and also group messages that share the hashtag, despite a commenter’s stance on the issue. Thus, many conflicting opinions can be presented side by side. Hashtags provide immense freedom of speech on social media networks and permit a specific comment or image to go viral rapidly because topics are concentrated in one place. Such concentration creates spheres and virtual spaces in which people attempt to enact social change, but likewise spaces that can purport discriminatory language and violence. These spaces and the ease of access with which many individuals can access them also provides means to formulate uneducated opinions, and to espouse misleading information based in opinion rather than fact. If our news media sources are noticeably biased also, how are we expected to know the truth about what is happening in our great nation?
In light of recent trials such as the deaths of Michael Brown and, most recently, Eric Garner, social media and hashtag use have complicated the circumstances surrounding the American justice system. When announcing the grand jury’s decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the death of Michael Brown, the spokesperson explicitly noted that the most significant challenge faced in the deliberation was the influx of social media reports and misinformation distributed. In such a technologically advanced age, it is impossible to deny that heightened access to and use of virtual communication spaces create opportunities for immense amounts of misinformation, bias, and general slander to be circulated. Despite such distribution, the grand jury’s three months of deliberation should not have been clouded by commentary from social media sites.
Intersectionality proves that it is impossible to discuss issues of race, sex, class, gender, etc. without constant intersections and implications associated with the various identity markers. Jurors and the justice system, however, should solely be concerned with concrete facts, rather than “convoluted” accounts and testimonies. The fact of the matter is that a young man died by way of another man’s gun. Death merits indictment. Whether or not the defendant is acquitted, death deserves a trial to defend consistency in our justice system. While hashtags such as #BlackLivesMatter and #ICantBreathe have been created in opposition to the grand jury’s repeat failure to indict officers, how effective has hashtag activism actually been in enacting change? Hashtags begin conversations, but until legislation is upheld to protect the lives of ALL Americans, hashtag activism is insufficient. It is larger than placing body cameras on officers, it is more than tweets expelling the phrase “No justice, no peace”. It is more than legislation; it is the standards of accountability to which all Americans, particularly those in positions of authority, are held. It is how our children’s textbooks will paint the scenes of millennial revolutionaries, or not. We live in the most progressive era which the most resources to date to enact social change and to achieve equality, yet we cannot progress until we achieve consistency.
