In today’s era of misinformation, it’s not especially unusual to see a flurry of conspiracy theories and other unenlightened discourse on social media. That issue is only amplified, concerningly so, when it comes to criminal cases involving high-profile figures.
The latest instance of this is in response to reports in the ever-evolving saga around Sean “Diddy” Combs, particularly since his September arrest when he was charged with racketeering, sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution. (He denied all charges.)
Early on in the discourse, much of the social media speculation was in response to the more sensationalized details trickling out of the 14-page indictment such as the now infamous “1,000 bottles of baby oil and lubricant” described as “freak-off supplies” that were seized from Combs’ home.
But most recently, social media users have been digging into the boundless belly of the internet for videos, photos and all else they can find on any celebrity in the 2000s that even marginally associated themselves with Combs’ White Parties and his allegedly more perilous freak-offs. (The discourse has often woefully conflated the two.)
The resulting narrative suggests that those celebs benefited from, participated in, or knew and did nothing about the alleged sex trafficking that took place at Combs’ events. Those are characteristics that contribute to being an enabler, which is a criminal offense — and a lot more complicated than what is being discussed on social media.
Carol Merchasin, an attorney who’s headed up cases involving sexual misconduct in religious, faith-based and spiritual communities, said that the Human Trafficking Act calls those perpetrators “beneficiaries.” “That is they are people who knew or should have known what was happening,” she told me, “and they benefited from what was happening, understood or should have understood that it was wrong.”
Read the full article here
