Drawing on communication affordance theory and literature on victim blaming, rape myths, and violence against women, this study uses a qualitative content analysis of 108 publicly available court judgements to examine the use of social media evidence in sexual assault trials in Canada. Our findings indicate that the defense and the prosecution use social media’s affordance of digital association to establish relational ties between victims and defendants. Both sides also draw on the persistence and visibility of social media to support different interpretations of the events surrounding the assault based on pre- and post-assault communications, especially as it relates to the matter of consent. Lastly, we find that news stories or public service announcements posted to social media are referenced in the courts as important motivators that encourage women to come forward about their assault.
BartaK (2021) Beacons over bridges: Hashtags visibility and sexual assault disclosure on social media. Information Communication & Society24(14): 2195–2212. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2021.1962946.
2.
Bélanger (2013) Direction Des Poursuites Criminelles et Pénales c. QCCQ 14247 (CanLII).
3.
BouxHDaumC (2015) At the intersection of social media and rape culture: How Facebook postings texting and other personal communications challenge the ‘real’ rape myth in the criminal justice system. Journal of Law Technology & Policy1: 149–186.
4.
Boydd (2010) Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances dynamics and implications. In PapacharissiZ. (Ed.) The Networked Self: Identity Community and Culture on Social Network Sites (pp. 39–58) Yale University Press.
5.
BurtM (1980) Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology38(2): 217–230. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.217.
DalyE (2022) Making new meanings: The entextualisation of digital communications evidence in English sexual offences trials. Crime Media Culture18(4): 578–596.
9.
DenaultV (2020) Misconceptions about nonverbal cues to deception: A covert threat to the justice system?Frontiers in Psychology11: 573460. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.573460.
10.
DodgeA (2017) The digital witness: The role of digital evidence in criminal justice responses to sexual violence. Feminist Theory19(9): 1–19.
11.
DodgeASpencerDRicciardelliR, et al. (2019) “This isn’t your father’s police force”: Digital evidence in sexual assault investigations. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology52(4): 499–515. DOI: 10.1177/0004865819851544.
12.
DonatPD’EmilioJ (1992) Feminist redefinition of rape and sexual assault: Historical foundations and change. Journal of Social Issues48(1): 9–22.
DunnSAikenheadM (2022) On the internet nobody knows you are a dog: Contested authorship of digital evidence in cases of gender-based violence. Canadian Journal of Law and Technology19(2): 371. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4095209
15.
EllisonLMunroVE (2009) Reacting to rape: Exploring mock jurors’ assessments of complainant credibility. British Journal of Criminology2: 202–219.
GarciaCA (2003) Digital photographic evidence and the adjudication of domestic violence cases. Journal of Criminal Justice31(1): 579–587. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2003.08.001.
18.
GibsonJ (1986) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Taylor & Francis.
19.
GjikaA (2020) New media old paradigms: News representations of technology in adolescent sexual assault. Crime Media Culture16(3): 415–430. DOI: 10.1177/1741659019873758.
20.
GjikaA (2023) When Rape Goes Viral. University of California Press.
21.
GjikaAStubbs-RichardsonMPaulM (2025) From private to public: Narratives of gender-based violence among the everyday voices of the #MeToo Movement. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1177/08862605251319348.
22.
GroggelAKokorisGJournetS (2024) Stereotypical victims: Visibility of #MeToo disclosures on Twitter. Violence Against Women. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1177/10778012241228288.
23.
GrubbATurnerE (2012) Attribution of blame in rape cases: A review of the impact of rape myth acceptance gender role conformity and substance use on victim blaming. Aggression and Violent Behavior17(5): 443–452. DOI: 10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.002.
24.
HargittaiEHsiehY (2010) Predictors and consequences of differentiated practices on social network sites. Information Communication & Society13(4): 515–536. DOI: 10.1080/13691181003639866.
25.
HlavkaHMullaS (2021) Bodies in Evidence: Race Gender and Science in Sexual Assault Adjudication. New York University Press.
26.
HohlKStankoE (2015) Complaints of rape and the criminal justice system: Fresh evidence on the attrition problem in England and Wales. European Journal of Criminology12(3): 324–341.
27.
JohnsonH (2012) Limits of a criminal justice response: Trends in police and court processing of sexual assault. In SheehyE (Ed) Sexual Assault in Canada: Law Legal Practice and Women’s Activism (pp. 633–654) University of Ottawa Press.
28.
KosloskiADiamond-WelchBMannO (2018) The presence of rape myths in the virtual world: A qualitative textual analysis of the Steubenville sexual assault case. Violence and Gender5(3): 166–173. DOI: 10.1089/vio.2017.0067.
LaneJ (2018) The Digital Street. Oxford University Press.
31.
LarcombeW (2002) The ‘ideal’ victim v. successful rape complainants: Not what you might expect. Feminist Legal Studies10: 131–148. DOI: 10.1023/a:1016060424945.
32.
MaiPGruzdA (2022) The State of Social Media in Canada 2022. Social Media Lab Toronto Metropolitan University. DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.21002848.
33.
MoorA (2010) She dresses to attract he perceives seduction: A gender gap in attribution of intent to women’s revealing style of dress and its relation to blaming the victims of sexual violence. Journal of International Women’s Studies11(4): 108–127.
34.
MooreDSinghR (2018) Seeing crime feeling crime: Visual evidence emotions and the prosecution of domestic violence. Theoretical Criminology22(1): 116–132. DOI: 10.1177/1362480616684194.
35.
OrchowskiLGrocottLBogenK, et al. (2022) Barriers to reporting sexual violence: A qualitative analysis of #WhyIDidntReport. Violence Against Women28(14): 3530–3553. DOI: 10.1177/10778012221092479.
PowellA (2015) Seeking rape justice: Formal and informal responses to sexual violence through technosocial counter-publics. Theoretical Criminology19(4): 571–588. DOI: 10.1177/1362480615576271.
QuickDChooKKR (2017) Pervasive social networking forensics: Intelligence and evidence from mobile device extracts. Journal of Network and Computer Applications86: 24–33. DOI: 10.1016/j.jnca.2016.11.018.
41.
RamirezF (2022) The digital divide in the US criminal justice system. New Media & Society24(2): 514–529. DOI: 10.1177/14614448211063190.
42.
RamirezFDenaultVCarpenterS, et al. (2021) ‘But her age was not given on her Facebook profile’: Minors social media and sexual assault trials. Information Communication & Society25: 1–17. DOI: 10.1080/1369118x.2021.1934065.
43.
RamirezFLaneJ (2019) Communication privacy management and digital evidence in an intimate partner violence case. International Journal of Communication13: 5140–5157.
44.
RandallM (2010) Sexual assault law credibility and ideal victims: Consent resistance and victim blaming. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law2: 397–433.
SalterM (2013) Justice and revenge in online counter-publics: Emerging responses to sexual violence in the age of social media. Crime Media Culture9(3): 225–242. DOI: 10.1177/1741659013493918.
SteevesV (2015) Pretty and just a little bit sexy I guess: Publicity privacy and the pressure to perform appropriate feminity on social media. In BaileyJSteevesV (Eds.) eGirls eCitizens (pp. 15–174) Ottawa Canada: University of Ottawa Press.
ZhuHMiaoW (2021) Should I click the “like” button for my colleague? Domesticating social media affordance in the workplace. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media65(5): 741–760. DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2021.1991350.
