🤦 FFS, behave yourselves will you.
https://unherd.com/newsroom/postpartum-psychosis-is-turning-into-tiktok-entertainment/
Out of this tragedy, some concerning trends have emerged. Online spectators are posting their trial takes as if they’re kids spotting clues in a fictional whodunnit, while others are performing “postpartum tantrums” as if becoming psychotic and killing infants was good fodder for comedy sketches. Everyone has an opinion, and most have personal agendas.
Who does livestreaming this horrific, complex ordeal really benefit? Video coverage of criminal trials is not a requirement. Whether courts should allow it is a live debate. On the one hand, video allows the public to observe justice directly and can expose misleading accounts. On the other hand, cameras change court participants’ behaviour, turning proceedings into entertainment, and can produce misleading reporting that goes viral on social media.
One online “therapist” posting about the Clancy trial shared a 10-minute rant to her 100,000+ TikTok followers, captioned “the prosecution’s lies”. A social worker, she presented herself as an authority, alleging that she worked at a hospital where Clancy once received treatment. But she admitted she didn’t personally treat Clancy, and had stopped working at the hospital before Clancy was ever treated there. Clancy’s lawyer found the viral video and tried to make the woman a defense witness. She was called to court — which garnered media attention — and presented evidence while the jury wasn’t there. Her “evidence” wasn’t material: she was simply “emotional” about the livestreamed trial describing hospital staffing levels in a way that was “not aligned” with her lived “experience”. Judge William Sullivan did not allow her testimony. But she has already benefited from the media attention.
https://archive.ph/SPRkd
HebrideanUltraTerfHecate
npub16z…v2x3v
2026-08-21 13:50:09 UTC
Author Public Key
npub16zcaf3sfpv50999p9laqrhyxg7dd0avf5depf0ccnafrvdcznhuslv2x3vPublished at
2026-08-21 13:50:09 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "b0477e969c331910b959db4c256b65222fea86605402b553474e4895ab8d4ff5",
"pubkey": "d0b1d4c6090b28f294a12ffa01dc86479ad7f589a37214bf189f523637029df9",
"created_at": 1787320209,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"proxy",
"https://spinster.xyz/objects/fbad5d29-1cbe-47e3-82bc-226d5727ba8f",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://spinster.xyz/objects/fbad5d29-1cbe-47e3-82bc-226d5727ba8f",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"-"
]
],
"content": "🤦 FFS, behave yourselves will you.\n\n https://unherd.com/newsroom/postpartum-psychosis-is-turning-into-tiktok-entertainment/\n\nOut of this tragedy, some concerning trends have emerged. Online spectators are posting their trial takes as if they’re kids spotting clues in a fictional whodunnit, while others are performing “postpartum tantrums” as if becoming psychotic and killing infants was good fodder for comedy sketches. Everyone has an opinion, and most have personal agendas.\nWho does livestreaming this horrific, complex ordeal really benefit? Video coverage of criminal trials is not a requirement. Whether courts should allow it is a live debate. On the one hand, video allows the public to observe justice directly and can expose misleading accounts. On the other hand, cameras change court participants’ behaviour, turning proceedings into entertainment, and can produce misleading reporting that goes viral on social media.\n\nOne online “therapist” posting about the Clancy trial shared a 10-minute rant to her 100,000+ TikTok followers, captioned “the prosecution’s lies”. A social worker, she presented herself as an authority, alleging that she worked at a hospital where Clancy once received treatment. But she admitted she didn’t personally treat Clancy, and had stopped working at the hospital before Clancy was ever treated there. Clancy’s lawyer found the viral video and tried to make the woman a defense witness. She was called to court — which garnered media attention — and presented evidence while the jury wasn’t there. Her “evidence” wasn’t material: she was simply “emotional” about the livestreamed trial describing hospital staffing levels in a way that was “not aligned” with her lived “experience”. Judge William Sullivan did not allow her testimony. But she has already benefited from the media attention.\n\n\nhttps://archive.ph/SPRkd",
"sig": "693bec4aa9bad22edf177c3f9ef7fbc3368714320e7a27b57c12f56dda540c73a0725ebd4ba57da2e4ad9ff2af564d97143fc6bba205ca02dddf52a8d14c7033"
}