Photo Credit: Jean-Gabriel Fernandez
The rainbow crosswalk at Cathedral Square.
A year ago July, Milwaukee theater people following social media became unwitting jurors in a very public trial by social media. In the best tradition of a kangaroo court, many performed the roles of both jury and witness. It’s hard to blame them for their enthusiasm. It was, after all, the first wave of the pandemic and, locked down as we were, our focus was largely on the surreal world of the media and, in particular, social media. As it is the wont of the mob, due process is neither here nor there in such matters, so the proceedings, as one-sided as they were, carried on regardless.
It seems a former actor (gender non-conforming, pronoun “they”) accused a pair of local theater directors of sexual and emotional abuse. The alleged transgressions had taken place seven years prior. The actual details presented seemed questionable in terms of actually meeting the criteria of crimes, but, nowadays, we tend to accept a broader definition of such things and take such accusations seriously, as we should.
Many responded to the accusations, lauding the accuser for their courage. For acquaintances of the two accused men, the news was shocking, of course. However, when anyone questioned the very idea that the accused would be guilty of such things (in other words, seeking the other side of the story), they were met by a broadside of insults from body shaming and ridicule, to ageism. One woman inadvertently used the wrong pronoun referring to the accuser and for that became a target herself. Her employer was noted in her online profile so the accuser rallied their followers to bombard her employer with emails denouncing her of being a friend of a pedophile (nothing in all of this had any relation to pedophilia). They gleefully complied. One promptly left the message “Done!” in answer to their clarion.
Accepting the Perks
Meanwhile, to buttress the culpability of the accused, the accuser asked for testimonials of similar experiences from his now rapt audience. Several eagerly offered their personal horror stories. The exercise intended to expose a pattern of criminal behavior on the part of the accused soon turned into a Kaffeeklatsch of “victims” upstaging each other with pearl-clutching accounts of abuse and harassment. One, a 20-something budding actor at the time (10 years prior) offered his extensively detailed narrative of his experience with the older of the men in question.
Ironically, it turned into a confession of his own exploitation of the man rather than a courtroom worthy condemnation. While admitting to gladly accepting all the perks (food, money, etc) of a traditional quid pro quo relationship, the witness said he denied his benefactor and would-be-suitor any of the quos. Another added his sad saga. While noting he had been warned about working with the same individual, he apparently frequently did. His eye-witness account includes an admission “nothing ever came of the suggestive things he said.” And yes, being made uncomfortable by suggestive speech can be considered harassment. However, under the circumstances, where there is nothing to compel one to remain in the uncomfortable situation, it would appear the gravity of it all didn’t inspire a quick exit let alone rise to the level of criminal behavior.
The next step in the effort to bring the alleged criminals to justice was to engage the local press in the pursuit. However, for lack of evidence, local media did not respond according to expectation.
When the accuser, who was then living in Chicago, reached out to the police, their response was equally dismissive. Milwaukee Police Department, its hands already full with People’s Revolution marches in addition to the usual distractions, advised them to go to the Chicago Police Department (CPD). That agency found no merit in the case, either.
Around this time, the accuser limited his social media access and slowly the available information disappeared entirely. Perhaps one could have “friended” the accuser to follow the latest developments. I chose to avoid that option.
Death Threat
Meanwhile, just a year later, according to a Kenosha newspaper, our accuser apparently aimed his ire at the Kenosha County District Attorney, whom they threatened to kill. That, apparently, is a felony and resulted in their arrest. When taken into custody, they were armed with a knife and two shanks. The criminal complaint cites their “undiagnosed mental health problems.”
In retrospect, there’s a lesson here. While the horse is long out of the gate in terms of containing our penchant for social media defamation, we might think twice before jumping on a bandwagon for the sake of a lynching. Encouraging someone’s mission to destroy others might seem like good fun or even a moral imperative at the time but doing so with only one-sided hearsay evidence of wrongdoing is dangerous. As ennobled as we might feel by our strident engagement in causes, sometimes it really is better to simply stand down.
Seeing the state of this person’s mind a year ago, I am not surprised at the subsequent turn of events. Fortunately, the accused didn’t become physical targets. Perhaps they would have had it not been for the fact their accuser was in Chicago and constrained by pandemic travel restrictions. Given the mob’s unwitting encouragement of an individual with violent intent, they should consider themselves very lucky.
