Page 124 - Courting the Media Contemporary Perspectives on Media and Law

―Your Words Against Mine‖: States of Exception… 115

of the parties might be declared as the most trustworthy which leads the court
to decide in his or her favor.
Yet, the symmetry in this situation is paradoxical because, as we have
seen, it is of an asymmetric character. It is based on the assumption that
neither party resigns the rightness of his/her own interpretations just like the
woman in her open public letter does not resign from her position of being an
equal partner in a dispute. The symmetry is accomplished through the
consequential exploitation of one‘s own perspective. Accomplishing a
situation as ―your words against mine‖ can thus be understood as a partial goal
to be sought in a negotiation where there is something to gain. The symmetry
is a joint construction that in itself is understood as asymmetrical.
As mentioned above, a person‘s own testimony is not of any higher value.
In a situation where the contested parties are the only witnesses of the event
who give their own report certain equilibrium is at hand; one testimony can
―eliminate‖ another testimony. Accomplishing such a position can be the
explicit communicative goal for any of the parties. Eradicating or balancing
another person‘s testimony by producing a testimony of one‘s own can be
sufficient ways of enhancing one‘s own position. One can ask if there is
something to gain on declaring a ―your words against mine‖ situation in other
contexts apart from the one mentioned above. Another context in which the
expression ―your words against mine‖ is most often used is situations of sexual
violence and rape. According to the constitution, it is the obligation of the
abused party to present evidence for the court. A suspected rapist need not,
however, show proof that he (in the typical case) is innocent but his role is of a
more defensive character. A suspected rapist can thus potentially win some
advantage by producing a story that runs counter to the story told by the
victim. Neither story can be verified by external witnesses. Only by a suspect
producing an alternative story can this function as a sufficient strategy for
being free from allegations. The suspected rapist can also win something
advantageous by coming to a situation in which the trustworthiness of the
victim must be investigated, what Judith Butler (1997) refers to as a process of
double vicitimization: first being victimized in the event and then in the court.
From this point of view, there is clearly something to be won by the suspect in
order to declare a ―your words against mine‖ situation. The only thing that is
required from him is to produce a sufficiently credible counter story. A
perpetrator who wants to avoid legal action or to minimize the possible
sentence can strategically act in order to enter into a communicative and legal
standstill, a communicative state of exception which cannot be decided upon.
Giving a counter story can thus be understood as an expression of the will to