So, I’ve been watching the reaction to the Lindsay Clancy case since the identity of the holdout juror became public, and I’ve noticed something that I find rather fucking interesting.
From what I’ve seen from regular people online, a lot of the people who were defending Lindsay Clancy so passionately before have suddenly become very quiet about the fact that the holdout juror was Black.
Gee, I wonder why.
No, not really.
I have my suspicions.
Because acknowledging that fact complicates the narrative.
If you’ve built your entire argument around the idea that this was a case of women being failed by the justice system, that the holdout was some heartless man standing in the way of justice for a vulnerable woman, then suddenly having to acknowledge that the one person who refused to go along with the majority was a Black man makes that narrative considerably more complicated.
And that’s precisely why I’m not going to shut up about him.
I’m going to keep talking about the holdout juror—not by naming him or spreading his personal information, because I’m still not going to do that—but by talking about what his treatment says about this entire situation.
I’ve listened to several people discussing this case, including Dr. Rashad from The Young Turks, who has recently discussed both the case and the treatment of the holdout juror. His criticism of the way the juror has been treated resonated with me.
Because let’s be honest: the way this man’s identity came out was fucking messy.
The court had initially sealed the jurors’ names. The judge later extended that protection indefinitely, citing a serious risk of harm to the jurors. At least one juror had reportedly received threats.
And yet the holdout juror’s identity was pieced together and circulated publicly anyway.
Whether every person who contributed to that chain of information intended to dox him is a separate question.
The outcome is what matters.
His identity became publicly identifiable.
His personal history became a subject of intense scrutiny.
And now he’s apparently had to retreat from public view with legal representation because of the attention surrounding him.
That’s not fucking good.
And I have criticism for the media here too.
When you’re covering a case this explosive, you have a responsibility to think about what information you’re putting into the public sphere and what people can do with it.
Even if a newsroom isn’t literally publishing someone’s home address, there is a difference between reporting responsibly and effectively handing the internet enough pieces of information to identify someone who the court was specifically trying to keep anonymous.
The judge sealing the jurors’ names is good as far as protecting the remaining jurors goes.
But once one juror’s identity is already circulating, sealing a list of names doesn’t magically put that person’s privacy back together.
The toothpaste is already out of the fucking tube.
And this is where I think the entire left has dropped the ball.
I’ve seen plenty of people on the left talking about Lindsay Clancy.
But from what I’ve seen, there has been remarkably little willingness to seriously criticize the case, question the surrounding narrative, or talk about the possibility of racial and privilege dynamics in the way this case is being discussed.
Instead, I’ve seen a lot of sympathy for Clancy.
And look, apparently I’m going to be one of the people who talks about the uncomfortable shit.
Fine.
I’ll do it.
I’ve even listened to people I wouldn’t normally seek out.
Yes, I listened to Asmongold discussing this.
And I know what some people are going to say.
“You’re supposedly on the left. Why the fuck are you listening to Asmongold?”
Because barely anyone on the left seems interested in seriously discussing this case from a critical perspective!
What the fuck do you expect me to do?
I’m going to listen to whoever is actually talking about something I think is important, and then I’m going to make up my own fucking mind.
That’s called thinking for yourself.
And that’s what I want more people on the left to do here.
We can be critical of Lindsay Clancy.
We can question the arguments surrounding this case.
We can discuss privilege.
We can discuss race.
We can discuss the treatment of the holdout juror.
We can discuss whether the media handled this responsibly.
We can discuss the jury system.
We can discuss all of that without suddenly becoming Republicans.
And I want to make that crystal fucking clear.
I am not covering this case the same way right-wing commentators are.
I’m not interested in using Lindsay Clancy as an excuse to attack women.
I’m not interested in turning this into some bullshit about how women are inherently manipulative.
I’m not interested in saying the 19th Amendment should be repealed.
To everyone using this case to spew misogyny:
Fuck off.
Seriously.
This case is not an excuse to launch a hate campaign against women.
One woman is not every woman.
One defendant is not every woman.
One criminal case does not justify demonizing an entire sex.
And I can criticize Lindsay Clancy specifically while still recognizing that women as a group have historically been treated unfairly by the justice system.
Those things are not contradictory.
They can both be true.
I can believe in feminism and still believe that individual women can abuse privilege.
I can believe women deserve to be taken seriously and still believe that an individual woman can do something profoundly wrong.
I can care about women’s rights and still be critical of a particular woman.
Because feminism does not mean giving every woman an automatic presumption of moral perfection.
Women are human beings.
Human beings can be victims.
Human beings can be perpetrators.
Human beings can be complicated.
And sometimes human beings fucking hurt other people.
That’s true regardless of gender.
So no, I’m not going to shut up about this case because some people might think my criticism makes me sound conservative.
I’m not going to shut up because someone might accuse me of being anti-woman.
And I’m certainly not going to shut up because someone doesn’t like the fact that I’m questioning a narrative that they’ve become emotionally attached to.
This is called democracy.
This is called free speech.
And this is called having the ability to criticize a case without automatically signing up for somebody else’s political team.
I can think Lindsay Clancy deserves scrutiny while believing women deserve equality.
I can defend the holdout juror’s right to privacy without agreeing with every conclusion he reached.
I can criticize the justice system without abandoning feminism.
I can talk about privilege without turning this into an attack on every white woman.
And I can do all of that while refusing to participate in the harassment of a Black juror.
That’s my position.
And I’m going to keep fucking saying it.