Law & Order Season 23 Episode 1 Review: Freedom of Expression

With Law & Order Season 23 Episode 1, “Freedom of Expression,” the mothership show is back, but at what cost? We all know the show and its spin-offs love to pull directly from the headlines to create the most dramatic stories.

Unfortunately, this time, the writers reached too far by trying to create an episode centered on the Israel/Palestine conflict in Gaza. While it is the biggest thing going on in the world right now, it shouldn’t have been touched for a TV show like this.

There are no easy answers or sides to take in such a conflict, so for the story to insist on leaning heavily one side over the other is a bit over the line. You can do a story about free speech vs. hate speech without it being centered on this particular conflict.

Cops At Their Finest

First and foremost, Law & Order comes in strong, in the wrong way, by replacing hothead Detective Cosgrove with the trigger-happy Detective Vince Riley. If this show wants people to see cops as more protective than aggressive, it does a terrible job convincing us.

Exchanging one explosive white cop with another puts a sour taste in my mouth. Especially considering one of the first significant exchanges he has with his new partner, the indelible Detective Shaw, he is berating him for preventing a suspect from being shot by Riley himself.

Many negative optics are going on with this exchange, the least of which is that Detective Riley is a shoot-first, ask-questions-later kind of cop. Then, there is the whole racial factor going on with a white cop telling a black cop he is wrong for trying a non-violent, peaceful approach. 

Then there is the addition that the suspect himself is a black man, and Riley was more than happy to shoot him without any real evidence he was the man who stabbed the victim.

Beyond this initial interaction, the story continues to show Riley and Shaw in a way that pushes the narrative that cops are always in the right, no matter the situation. It’s frustrating, and I’m not convinced that the cops were in the wrong when the Pro-Palestinian group calls them out for harassment.

After all, Shaw and Riley should’ve walked away when Chloe Esper stated she didn’t wish to speak to them. They don’t have a warrant, so they don’t have a leg to stand on despite insisting they come in peace.

Maroun’s Stance

Even more appalling than the latest decision regarding the detectives is the decision to have ADA Maroun lean very heavily pro-Israel during the trial. While it’s not my place to say where anyone should land in regards to stance on this conflict, it is astounding that the writers would have a Middle Eastern woman voicing opinions against a Middle Eastern Film Symposium. 

Also, Maroun is canonically known for putting aside her neutrality on human and civil rights cases. All of these are at play with this case, yet she calls out the film event as appalling and disparaging — not exactly neutral words.

As the ADA, she does need to go up against the people’s case for the young man suspected of the murder, but she doesn’t have to take quite an intense stance on the conflict. It’s obvious where she stands whenever she and Price talk about it outside the courtroom.

Even Price expects her to be more compassionate toward the Pro-Palestinian group that the college has censured, and now the courts, but is thrown when she stands with him. So, why does Maroun go so strong to stand against these young people voicing support for Palestine?

It’s an element of the case that upsets me because if anyone amongst these government officials were going to be a voice for Palestine/Pro-Palestinian groups, it would be her. Aside from that, Maroun has always been a champion for women, and now she is giving her all to accuse a woman of manipulation and coercion because she was the professor voicing the same stance as the student group.

If there is ever a time to accuse Law & Order of character assassination, this is it. 

The Verdict Doesn’t Matter

Ultimately, the verdict on this court case doesn’t even matter because we’ve lost interest 50 miles back. This case should have never become so politicized, and the writers shouldn’t have written something so personally divisive into the show.

In the past, I have been vocal about how certain cases don’t have any winners, and this case is the same. Despite the professor being found not guilty, the young man still ends up in prison for 10 years, and three people died unnecessarily. 

There is no satisfaction with this case because no justice is found. 

 

What did you think of this episode of Law & Order? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Critic Rating:

User Rating:

 

Law & Order airs Thursdays at 8/7c on NBC.

 Follow us on Twitter and on Instagram!

Want more from Tell-Tale TV? Subscribe to our newsletter here!

The Completely Made-Up Adventures of Dick Turpin Sets March Premiere Date on Apple TV+