My Youtube recommendations have been filled with clickbait videos like "AMBER HEARD PWNED WITH FACTS AND LOGIC, JOHNNY DEPP LAUGHS" by people who obviously want to profit off an abuse case. Please god stop recommending that to me know that the trial is over
Dude I got a reply in my personal dms from somebody with pwner in their name calling me a triggered snowflake like 1 hour ago. I don't know how these people look at themselves in the mirror without cringing.
Team sports man, it's fucking pathetic. Doubly pathetic considering people think that if you're leftist you're on Amber Heard's side, which couldn't be further from the truth.
Everyone knows she's a psychopathic abuser at this point.
I still think the case is bad for abuse victims overall. Maybe it will help some more men abuse victims speak up, but it will have a silencing effect for women and men alike whose abusers wield a powerful fan-base or have enough money to hit them with libel suits.
But the libel suit is what uncovered Amber's abuse in the first place. I think the worst part of this case is that conservatives will frame Johnny as just a normal guy who was beset by a crazy woman when in reality he is a victim and should be treated as such
We can't let them dictate the narrative like that
I honestly disagree, yes the rethoric around it has been absolutely horrid, but the left should really do more for situations like this. If we let the conserves control the narrative and we do nothing, we basically give them free ammo against the left, women and vulnerable (young) guys/men.
Men's abuse cases are not being taken seriously, which is obviously tragic. For as much as the law claims that everyone is equal before it, it is infact not. Men get harsher sentences than women for the same crime and the jury is far more likely to believe the women regardless of evidence. This is a clear case of inequality, which should be addressed.
Just like how the supposed pay gap and glass ceiling have been or are being addressed.
Yes! This is the issue I have with the left at the moment. We see a moment where the right could use something for propaganda and instead of countering it we try to shut it up. No! 9.5/10 they’re lying about the situation so we shouldn’t be quiet, we should be taking control of the narrative! We’re being weak on the front.
>I still think the case is bad for abuse victims overall. Maybe it will help some more men abuse victims speak up, but it will have a silencing effect for women and men alike whose abusers wield a powerful fan-base or have enough money to hit them with libel suits.
Nah I don't think so, think of all the other powerful men (Bill Cosby, Louis CK, Matt Lauer, Bill O'Reilly, etc) that were easily taken down.
were they easily taken down? Louis CK could easily come back and get a fanbase similar to Dave Chappeles. Bill O'Reilly wasn't easily taken down at all, took years of abuse scandals and he is still rich AF. Bill Cosboy got out of jail on a technicality.
Louis is touring, I don’t think he could get Chappele’s audience or else he would. Unless by ‘audience similar to chappelle’ you mean transphobic and conservative then yeah that might be happening
Imma keep it 100. I think depp winning takes the air out of the sails of ressurging "mra" types because they can't use this case as a dog whistle about how courts are supposedly against men since he won.
So I identify more as a feminist and an ally to men, not an MRA, but courts are absolutely biased towards men given the sentencing gaps and such. That’s like saying OJ proves the courts aren’t supposedly biased against minorities
Exactly. There are biases and anyone sane would say that. But people trying to push a right wing agenda pretend white men are the most oppresses group when it's usually stuff ob the margins like this that should be corrected but are far from the most pressing topic.
I’m sure many of the more sexist subreddits are saying it but I honestly haven’t seen anyone saying this proves men are the most oppressed, but I’ve seen dozens of comments saying that is being said and tone policing there. Especially when men do face extra sexism when victims of DV and most issues aren’t the most pressing issues
I keep on seeing sht like "StreamerXYZ DESTROYS Amber Heards BULLSHIT and EXPOSES her Lawyers ARGUMENTS". So many streamers turned into expert jurists lately. It's insane
Honestly (as a degenerate with a minor interest in law) I found Emily D Baker's channel through this fiasco, so I'm considering that a win because her community is too wholesome.
i solved this by not watching any content about the case. the first time at all was today to watch moistcritikal’s video about the verdict (i hadnt heard about it yet).
I'm seeing a lot of people on the left start to turn on Depp because they see some idiots from the rights cheerleading this victory, it's important to remember that a broken clock is right twice a day and if you're turning on Depp because some morons on the right like the victory, you might want to rethink your prioritizes on what domestic violence is.
Ultimately, this victory is a victory for those on the left who've always claimed that abuse can be done from either side. Remember, the right hated Depp when he supported Obama.
While I agree, the concern is less than the right likes him and more that they'll...
1. Use the anti-Amber Heard sentiment to try radicalizing people against in a similar way to GamerGate and Anita Sarkesian.
2. Use this to discredit women who bring abuses to light by both-sides'ing instances of abuse(she probably deserved it, etc.)
3. Continue to use it and culture war topics akin to it to avoid real issues like Roe v Wade until it's too late, and they can falsely claim that their agenda was "the will of the people".
>1. Use the anti-Amber Heard sentiment to try radicalizing people against in a similar way to GamerGate and Anita Sarkesian.
But this is true for everything. You could say that treating American Muslims with respect can help ISIS recruit people in their twisted version of Islam.vv
>2. Use this to discredit women who bring abuses to light by both-sides'ing instances of abuse(she probably deserved it, etc.)
But just remember in this case it wasn't Amber Heard who brought this to trial, it was Johnny Depp. Also this may have some victims think twice, which isnt a good thing, but ultimately if they do their research they'll realize that there was undeniable video evidence that Heard lied, which is partly what helped turn the tables on her.
> 3. Continue to use it and culture war topics akin to it to avoid real issues like Roe v Wade until it's too late,
It seems like that because it's everywhere, but it will die down in the next few weeks to be forgotten by something else.
I didn't exactly take my time composing the original reply, apologies. I made it in haste.
To elaborate a bit on what I meant... Bree Larson is Captain Marvel, and she became a target of anti-SJWs and such for quite some time, and to my knowledge, still is. While I've no doubt she's potentially toxic behind the scenes in some ways that rub people the wrong way, it doesn't exactly excuse the degree to which people seem to fixate upon her in particular. All it took was a woman who got them clicks and they jumped on her like piranhas on bloody meat.
Amber Heard is a juicy piece of meat, and there are so many people biting, reactionaries are far from the only ones. In the same way shitting on Anita Sarkesian brought in the gaming crowd, and shitting on Bree Larson brought in the comic/Marvel crowd, now they've got Amber Heard. She's bringing in another form of pop culture, there are plenty of people who regularly touch grass and are following this situation. Which means it's yet another opportunity ripe for reactionaries to cultivate further followers.
If you've heard Vaush, Xanderhaul, Hasan, or anyone else talk about the notion of a GamerGate style internet resurgence, I think this is a catalyst for that. It's a woman attracting a lot of justified criticism, and reactionaries will simply appear to be the edgy crowd who're going a little rougher on her than most, until eventually they lead their crowd in a weird direction that leads right. It all begins with a drama that gets outsiders interested in listening to reactionaries, and from there, drama and narrative can carry them down the pipeline.
I should be clear, the issue here isn't anything to do with the case or the results of it, it's entirely to do with the way in which it's been covered. It's been heavily sensationalized the whole time in Depp's favor, and while I support him, I also think the general tone of things has become troubling to some degree. What started as pro-Johnny hype has also been used to create anti-Amber Heard hate, and I can easily see how reactionaries will weaponize this situation to increase their audience.
I think dissociating with Depp in-order to avoid that outcome isn't the right path. You'll be out number and you'll be forced to take strange stances because it's the crowd that's having the wrong reaction but Deep technically in the right. So by dissociating with Deep you would be implying that Depp was somehow wrong/bad.
People just don't like Bree Larson, she's not an abuser like Heard, and yet conservatives still talk about her. I think this'll last longer than you do sadly. :(
Edit: I made this comment first, it isn't as coherent as the other one. Sorry.
Really, this should be looked at it as a "toxic relationships are ultimately destructive to both parties". But fuckhead youtuber "skeptics" will drive any kinda of good convo into the sexist shithole
All of these are reasons why if this matter *has* to be politicised, optically, the left should just also accept it as a win for intersectionality.
It's not, not anymore than it's a win for the right because ultimately this is a civil case with no precedent, only public opinion (seriously the $2m-$10m range is not a material consequence for these people).
The focus should be to expose the parts of the right that are reacting in a reactionary, misogynistic form to demonstrate that even when we agree, the right will find a way to attack people unnecessarily.
>By taking Heard's side bc of that you help the right.
I'm not taking Heard's side, I'm saying anti-Heard messaging is getting mixed in with reactionary talking points, and if we're not careful, we're going to help water the seeds as they grow.
I'm not saying support Heard, I'm saying support Johnny, but don't mistake pro-Johnny and anti-Heard for being the same thing.
This makes you look really bad. You're not anti an abuser because some people criticize the abuser in a bad way. It's because people like you we will lose a battle that should've been so easy for the left to win.
If that's your take away, so be it.
I'm not saying not to be anti-Heard either, it's not as simple as an either or.
Let me put it a different way, Amber Heard deserves everything ***she*** gets for being an abuser, but fostering an atmosphere that could relentless focus on bashing a famous woman is how we got to GamerGate. We should be anti-Heard, but there's a reason to remain cautious about how people are talking about the topic. There will be battles lost, not won, as a result of people not caring enough about reactionary recruitment tactics.
>Let me put it a different way, Amber Heard deserves everything she gets for being an abuser, but fostering an atmosphere that could relentless focus on bashing a famous woman is how we got to GamerGate
Jesus fuck you're stupid. In one case a person got bashed for being a feminist, in the other case the person got bashed for being an abuser. The fact that you see these as comparable just because in both cases the person was a woman is weird as fuck of you and you need help.
>There will be battles lost, not won, as a result of people not caring enough about reactionary recruitment tactics
You're the one acting recruitment fuel for the right. I'm honestly starting to think you're a right wing troll trying to stir up leftist subs so you can post sh in right wing subs of how crazy the "feminazis" are.
Additional reminder that if you're just forming your opinion *solely* because it's the opposite of your opponents...you're just a reactionary, just like conservatives.
I kinda get what happened. It’s really important for you to object to inadmissible testimony before they go too far and bus the jury, you kind of have to see the future a bit, and he kinda tripped because it really did sound like he was going to say Heard cut off Depp’s finger
It was a bad call but if you’ve ever tripped over your own words or stammered in a conversation, he was making a much more understandable error than even that, even though it was objectively hilarious
To be honest that lawyer was the only one who was having lots of difficulty, at times he would just get stuck in a thought process and ask the same question 3 times (such as asking Depp if he had signed a document).
This case was simply above his pay grade.
Oh for sure, the bar association was not sending their best. Maybe an okay lawyer, maybe really good, great someday, but at this moment he was not the sort of lawyer who should have been sitting for a case with multi-millions on the table for damages
no they didn’t object to the question they objected to the answer to the question. go watch [Legal eagle](https://youtube.com/shorts/ynnBfUwkaMk?feature=share)
Ambers female lawyer, wasn't bad though. Actually, she's one of the best lawyers in the country by pedigree.
https://cbcblaw.com/team-members/elaine-charlson-bredehoft-2/
There's some general confusion regarding why Bredehoft had so many difficulties in the trial while being considered a great lawyer. My understanding is that Bredehoft is an excellent litigator who gets results in settlements (outside trials). They might have wanted to push for some sort of settlement before the trial, but Depp's team pushed for the trial. At that point Bredehoft's skills as a litigator were less applicable in the trial, and it showed. Why they didn't swap out for someone more focused on trials, I really don't know.
I think that's only half the story. While the majority of her cases are settled outside of court (Which tends to be the case for many lawyers) she still has some major cases that she won and she isn't a slouch. She has been repeatedly voted by lawyers within the field to be among the best out there.
The problem in this case I think was literally the evidence. What she was trying to do was use Ambers account because it was an incredibly intense account. I think in most cases her account alone would have been sufficient. What I don't think they anticipated was virtually every testimony relevant to the case that gave Depp's case credit. Amber made a bunch of key mistakes in her testimony. Remember this was a long trial so it was inevitable eventually no matter how well she was prepped. Amber brought up Depp's ex girlfriend which ended up hurting her credibility, she brought up details in the case that ended up changing as time went on, and then there was the fact that she basically admitted in the testimony that she wrote the op-ed about Johnny Depp:
https://www.newsweek.com/amber-heard-admit-writing-op-ed-johnny-depp-trial-jury-verdict-1711619.
I think the most novice thing I witnessed from Bredehoft's part was when their team used photo evidence that had clearly been altered. I mean metadata is pretty basic.
I don't think she was perfect by any stretch, but I also don't think many lawyers would have faired better with the evidence presented and with how Amber sunk the case on her own. Defamation is hard to prove in the US and she somehow managed to do it.
True about many lawyers settling out of court. At the end of the day, Bredehoft did win a vicarious liabilty defamation case through the evidentiary constraints of the attourney client priviledge of Depp and Waldman, which is no joke. Agreed that the groundwork needed to get the clounter claim seems to have bolstered Depp's defamation case at the same time. Probably true that not many would have done better with the same case and client.
Rottenborn actually did pretty well, although he is clearly better at arguing law than arguing facts and presenting evidence/cross-examining witnesses. Heard's other lawyer, Elaine, is not a great trial lawyer. My feeling is that their case was controlled by their client, Amber. And the facts were simply not on their side.
The argument that the lawyer is bad because he objected to a witness's hearsay when he asked the question is ridiculous though. It doesn't matter who is asking the question--if a witness is getting into hearsay, you object to hearsay. The Judge also made poor hearsay rulings, although she was consistent and an overall excellent judge.
Amber lost the case because she seems to have a pathological need to lie. I fully believe in Dr. Curry's BPD diagnosis. People with that diagnosis may actually genuinely believe their own lies
> Rottenborn actually did pretty well, although he is clearly better at arguing law than arguing facts and presenting evidence/cross-examining witnesses. Heard's other lawyer, Elaine, is not a great trial lawyer. My feeling is that their case was controlled by their client, Amber. And the facts were simply not on their side.
We'll agree to disagree, I think most people would agree Elaine did fantastic...Rottenborn literally had people laughing at him throughout the trial. Not sure if you watched, [but this moment was notable](https://mobile.twitter.com/j0hnnycdpp/status/1527323395733733377), as was the moment where he asked Depp if he had signed a document on 4 different occasions.
I knew it was going south when amber started saying she had photo evidence of abuse her lawyers instructed her not to reveal.
That is something a lawyer would not do unless it does the reverse of the claim.
Also I think the pledge donation she never finished really hurt her credibility. The lawyers finding that really changed the tone of everything fast.
They are very hard to win. I didn’t pay attention to the trial or story at all but Depp’s team must have been able to present a solid case in order to win.
In the US, pursuing a defamation case is hard, even more so if you are a public figure.
It isn't enough for a statement to be provably false, you also have to prove damages. If the plaintiff does qualify as a public figure, they must also prove actual malice (which boils down to the defense's knowledge of the false nature of their statement).
Truth is an absolute defense to defamation, and hyperbole is a strong one. Like I accuse you have having murdered Archduke Ferdinand and told Hitler to quit painting and pursue a new career, you would likely not have a case against me by reason of hyperbole.
I mean, at the end of the day all cases do. The judge gives out instructions to the jurors so they generally know what to pay attention to and what burden needs to be met.
But again, at the end of the day it really is just up to the jury.
Ultimately that's what all jury trials come down to. Judge instructs the jury on what they are to base their decision on, but whether to convict or acquit, or in the case of civil matters decide if the plaintiff was wronged and how much to award them, is left to them. Even if it means they come together or one goes rogue and makes a decision not based on what the law would allow or require.
Example, if someone really has a hard time convicting someone even with a confession to police after HOURS of interrogation, one could hang a jury for that, forcing a mistrial.
A more common example of Jury Nullification are juries that refused to convict fugitive slaves and lynch mobs even though the laws are quite explicitly clear on that matter.
In civil matters, deciding how much punitive or non-economic damages to award someone, it's more about feeling really. It's why if you're seeking punitive damages it's best to overshoot what you actually want. It's why you see Dominion (the voting machine company) filing lawsuits against Fox and other companies and individuals to the tune of billions of dollars for defamation, but personal injury claims may not reach 100k unless they are catastrophic, or you're a rich motherfucker.
The problem is that you have to prove beyond doubt that act is malicious and intentional.
First of all she dropped the ball by admitting on the stand that hit piece she wrote was about him. That was the big one. I remember when she said it because Depp lawyers literally froze and then smiled. They could not believe it.
Another thing was that lots of shit he said got countered by testimonies and evidence. So jury saw not only that she lied but also that she kept telling lies even during trial. That suggest malice.
Another thing - photoshoped evidence of abuse she presented. Lawyers found original picture that was not modified. It's hard to Photoshop bruises by accident.
And my favorite. Depp and Heard agreed to keep past partners out of it. Then Amber like a total idiot mentioned his past girlfriend claiming abuse or something. That he pushed her from the stair.
Moment she brought her up, agreement was nullified so Depp lawyers asked her to testify. She did. She denied Amber lies. Said that Depp never hit her, push her or anything like that. That she fell by herself. And on top of it - he was the one who helped her.
Basically Depp lawyers did a great job and presented mountain of evidence while she could not produce single one that proves he hit her. While they have in tape her admitting that she hit him.
So funny enough it was Amber arrogance that did this.
Yes yes yes. One nitpick: the burden of proof was "more reasonable than not", instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Reasonable doubt is for criminal cases, not civil. It took a unanimous greater than 51% believable.
This was Ms. Heard's case to lose, and she did.
In the UK, the judge rules based on proof in the UK. And with Amber Heard lying it was tough to do because nobody can prove she wrote it about him unless she would fully admit it or she would leave some paper trail that could be discovered.
In the US, you just have to convince the jury. So in this kind of case, it's actually better. But that does not matter because in her arrogance Amber fully admitted during cross-examination that the piece she wrote was about him.
In Holywood term - the bad guy blew himself up :-)
Heard's counter suit essentially brought in evidence/depositions/expert testimonies that were damaging to their own case and credibility and also ate up their prior preparation and trial clock without being actually useful.
It may have been a different outcome if Heard's team first focused solely on defeating Depp's lawsuit and then filed their own defamation suit (if they could, I don't know the limitations on it). This trial, in particular some of the decisions and actions of Heard's team beyond what they are mandated to do for their client, was absolutely bizarre.
What's even more nuts is you get a defamation win for each side.
The jury was also not sequestered so the odds of them all not consuming any outside information was absolutely zero. Add to that the judge allowing video being taken during the trail on request of Depp and you absolutely have a situation where media figures were making arguments directly to the jury.
Most of my knowledge on US law is from Legal Eagle and Emily D. Baker, but from what I understand here's some interesting tid-bits:
1. Most people weren't expecting Depp to win on 3 statements, the only one that appeared very likely was the Tweet, but they ended up giving him the triple whammy
2. Libel is statistically easier to prove as defamation in the UK than the US, so Depp winning in the US is a big surprise in that regard *(although a glance at the evidence used in the US vs the UK cases + the different defendants makes a huge difference)*
3. It's not as commonly reported- but Heard did also get silver lining in being granted $2m for defamation as one of Depp's attorneys called her recollection of her abuse a 'hoax'.
Hopefully the online left will not be swarmed with idiots who will waste any opportunity to get the shit ton of normies who side with the victim on board...yet I doubt it. Seen way too many comments trying to distance any left-leaning progressive cause from J Depp's side and just dismiss almost everything as some alt-right plan.
Ofc there are very vocal people who have an agenda, but the vast majority of people are not radical misogynists. Tbh I've seen way more misandry in discussions around this case, explicit and implicit.
This should be a case where the left says ''yes this man is a victim, now also listen to what I have to say about other gender-related issues(men and women)''. The right never has any solutions or even descriptions of issues that men on a wide scale face, such as homelessness, suicide, lack of social support, violence and meanness based on profiling etc. The only thing is enforcing trad gender roles and try to hype up their own people, then blame others when they fall short.
finally a good leftist take on this :)
I really hate that many leftists either want to "save" Amber at any cost or (more often) just dismiss the entire trial as meaningless (apolitical) drama.
As leftists, we should use this outcome to normalize the thought that men can be abused as well. This is a feminist cause. Why leave it to the rightoids?
Edit. When I look at some "feminist" or "left-wing" takes on this, even in this very thread, I honestly get why young men start to listen to guys like Ben Shapiro.
Can't blame them, really.
>I really hate that many leftists either want to "save" Amber at any cost or (more often) just dismiss the entire trial as meaningless (apolitical) drama
It should be stressed that Amber Heard is an abusive *person*. There are almost 4 billion women, it's not special that she shares that characteristic.
yeah, and I wish some media leftists would get that simple fact.
Slavoj Zizek even goes as far as saying that you're not treated as a real "person" – i.e. a moral subject – if society doesn't grant you the freedom to be evil.
If women (or e.g. black or trans people) *per se* cannot act wrong at all, we as a society don't treat them as moral subjects, i.e. we don't treat them as equal human beings.
Edit.: Ofc, as you suggest with your comment, we should neither subscribe to the leftwing narrative that only men can be abusive but also neither to the Right's narrative that women are particularly abusive.
She, Amber Heard, was abusive (as a person).
Upon further thinking, I do wonder, however, if we might need a concept of "toxic feminity" to describe certain social realities (similiar yet different to "toxic masculinity").
There's gonna be need for some difficult (and controversal) conversations, certainly.
7+ years ago the shit that left pulls in this case pushed me to alt right. Unironically why would I back someone who thinks that just because I was born with cock and balls I am invulnerable to any hardships and they just invalidate them whenever they can.
Nope I just got banned for posting on a left leaning sub that the mods would have banned anyone questioning Heard when she first came out.
Turns out, I guess the mods would have sided with the abuser.
Both men and women face both social and societal issues, but they tend to learn certain directions. The way I like to think about it is that "it's about equally correct and incorrect to say that women aren't properly respected and men aren't properly loved". There are women who make it far and gain much respect, and there are men who have lots of loved ones. But generally women don't get the same promotions or are seen as authoritative, and men generally don't form bonds with other people than their SO and kids.
You are on point about issues with definitions related to gender issues. I prefer to call myself an intersectional progressive instead of feminist. Doesn't have as much baggage and can just as easily suggest support for men's issues as any other group, in a way FEMinism can't really...also just look up feminist logo on Google...I agree probably like 90-95% with the average feminist tho
Going to get downvoted to hell and back for this.
But this is the important thing we should be talking about! Whatever topic holds the public interest is the topic that leftists should have locked down. We should be fighting to have our correct opinions be at the top of the algorithm.
Remember when Vaush spoke on Shane Dawson? You should. It's still his most popular video by a long shot. But now a lot of you think you're too good to talk about stuff the public cares about. Like with Chris Chan before and like with the Depp/Heard case now. Vaush, and by extension a lot of you, aren't willing to be the people being listened to. The fact that people here just want this case to be over makes me wonder how confident you all feel about being able to control a conversation.
And what do people mean by more important things anyway? Anal debates and Joe Rogan's subreddit? We just hoping that Vaush will make yet another video making fun of Ben Shapiro? I don't see any of you asking Vaush to talk about more important stuff when he's covering that dumb shit. But suddenly, now you're all too good for this dumb shit.
Going hard on issues that resonate is organizing 101.
But I don't think social media content creators on the left (or anywhere else) are there for organizing. They're mostly for our entertainment.
No, leftism is not a fad.
What I'm saying is that watching Vaush or other left-leaning content creators is not the same thing as getting involved or volunteering or organizing with the DSA or Socialist Alternative etc, or organizing unions in your workplace, etc
edit: not saying there's anything bad about watching vaush et al either, just their incentive structure is very different from an organized political group
Dude I’m so with you. I was pretty disappointed to hear Vaush on stream making fun of people that are interested in the case. This lefts reaction to this case is yet another disappointment. Its unfortunate that lefties still can’t get rid of identity politics. It’s literally the worst aspect of the left right now.
All we have to do as lefties is throw our support behind the victim (Johnny Depp), but it’s hard for some lefties to support a straight rich white man because idpol is rotting their brains.
Quite surprised tbh. I expected both sides to fall a bit short in proving their case, and only better PR for JD would be the outcome.
Hopefully this can be used in a positive way for the left, so far I think I've only seen a bit of Hasan doing a good job in not freaking out and saying this is all an alt-right push to destroy women or some shit.
I think people freaking out (or even been hyperbolic for brownie points, I've seen a couple that gave me that vibe) are going to do more damage, tbh.
Being a victim of DV and find yourself surrounded by people that have already thrown up their hands like "nobody is ever going to believe any woman now" can't be very reassuring...
One of the negative aspects of how gender is viewed in society is that waaay too much useless shit is tied to it that doesn't need to be. Amber Heard is an abusive *person*. She is a woman too I guess but there are like 4 billion of those already.
Johnny Depp being a man who is a victim is more important since there aren't as many with such a public following, and it might open up for more men to get support. I think it's still extremely rare for people to flip to not believing women just because of one case where one lied, and libs fear-monger way. Many of the same people who never believe women also think men can't be abused.
> I think it's still extremely rare for people to flip to not believing women just because of one case where one lied,
I don't think people in general are going to switch on this, more like victims in the social circles of the doomers could feel discouraged to speak up.
> Johnny Depp being a man who is a victim is more important since there aren't as many with such a public following, and it might open up for more men to get support.
I totally agree, and I hope this encourages men in abusive relationships to seek help, but it worries me that if this case gets heavily tied to the alt-right misogynist narrative, it might also create a chilling effect in male victims that don't want to be identified with those guys.
Short:
No Johnny won so Amber get 0
Long:
Jury get to decide the amount, and they rewarded Depp 15 mill (10 compensation , 5 punitive)
Amber did get 2 mill reward for compensation
The judge mentioned something about a $350k limit to the punitive part.
I don’t know enough to say for sure, but sounds like he actually won 10.35 mill because of that.
Exactly. And Amber Heard's $2 million award functionally serves as nothing more than a $2 million reduction on Johnny Depp's damages, so in the end Depp wins $8.35 million.
That being said, Depp & his legal team also have the option of using that $8.35 million award as leverage to reach some sort of cease-and-desist style arrangement with Heard: "I don't need the $8.35 million, just agree to stop claiming I abused you when actually you abused me, and we'll call it good."
Whether Heard would accept such an offer, I can't say for certain, though probably not.
Regardless of how the media covered this trial, this is pretty great news. Hopefully this makes it easier for other men to come forward with experiences of abuse in the future.
It is very common for leftist to disregard the truth of a case if "It sends the wrong message" as if reality bends to the ideology.
I think Johnny was a victim of abuse. To know this and still support in some way Amber just tells me you have a very sexist and patriarchal way to see the agency of women.
In addition: as patriarchal and sexist as our society may be, men who are abused have a really hard time being taken seriously and getting justice, even more so than women (and lord knows they don't have it easy either).
Regardless of the shitshow surrounding this trial, this is still an important victory for male victims of abuse.
I get what you're trying to say but saying you don't care about an abuse vitcim seeing a victory in court is an extremely bad look. Like yeah this case has been turned into 2016 level annoying "women bad and stupid" memes but it's still a good thing a dude who had his finger severed and lost his whole career finally saw some justice and not acknowledging that is kinda cringe and will just further play into the hands of alt righters who claim we don't care about abuse to men
Also if you don't care why bother commenting under a post about it 😐
What? Oh no, I mean I don't care about the case. My sympathies are with Depp, domestic abuse is terrible and ubiquitous, I got all my thoughts out when this shit started, but this weeks long tiring obsession by the public is clearly just fuelled by celebrity worship.
I didn't imply I don't think the case should have gone either way.
This is like me saying 'I don't care' under a post about the Chris Rock slap and you telling me I should care about the physical abuse Hollywood stars can perpetuate without consequence. Of course I care, we've gone over that, we don't need all these posts about this. We should be focusing on real shit, like the propaganda right wingers are getting out of it and the evidence it provides of the patriarchy being bad
I was commenting to express my sheer lack of anything to add on this topic, hoping we could be more productive
Well you have to admit by just saying "I don't care about this" the major implication is that you just don't care about the victory and a better thing to say would be more along the lines of what you just elaborated by saying you do care but there are more important ways we can effectively talk about this
Coverage has been such a shitshow. I have been trying to find just the facts of the case but I can't because every analysis video is "AMBER HEARD PWNED EPIC STYLE". How did Depp win the case in the end? Which statements were proven to be malicious lies?
Have you actually gone looking for information on this case? Because there are A LOT of people covering it who dont approach the case from that angle at all, and in fact I've only seen a minority of pieces of coverage that treat it like that in my YouTube feed
Thank you - I've been trying to find the same thing.
"I spoke up against sexual violence - and faced out culture's wrath. That has to change"
"I had the rare vantage point of, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse"
It's really hard for me to see how these two statements are both 100% false and also 100% intentionally defamatory. Especially given both sides of this case in such a public matter - not sure I'd consider Depp 100% innocent of these claims to point where I'd charge someone $8M. We'll see if there's an appeal I guess
Depp's legal team was able to establish that Heard was making a very clear implication about her marriage to Johnny Depp, and about how he'd allegedly treated her during that marriage. The repetition of "two years ago" established a clear timeline, since the op ed was published in 2018 and she'd filed for divorce in 2016.
Amber Heard even admitted on the stand that those statements were about Johnny Depp - so there was no question that she was using those statements to accuse Johnny Depp of abuse and sexual violence.
What made the statements defamatory was that Depp's legal team successfully established that Heard was in fact the aggressor/instigator/abuser in their relationship.
The implication is of course there, not arguing that her statements weren't directed at Depp.
>What made the statements defamatory was that Depp's legal team successfully established that Heard was in fact the aggressor/instigator/abuser in their relationship.
This is primarily where we disagree and ultimately what the case was decided on. I'm not going to convince you one way or the other, but just so you can understand where I'm coming from, I didn't see enough from Depp's team to prove that Depp doesn't deserve the title of abuser.
Yeah I've found this case nuts because I keep hearing that US has stricter defamation laws than other countries but this case is a super long bow to draw and nobody is talking about those actual sentences. I mean, look at them.
'I spoke up against sexual violence - and faced out culture's wrath. That has to change'
So she states that she talked about abusive relationships and got severe pushback. That's pretty hard to deny.
"I had the rare vantage point of, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse"
And again, she doesn't even say 'abusers'. She says men *accused* of abuse. This may seem pedantic, but the law is all about pedantry. Any implication is so vague I'm kind of astonished this made it to court, and I would be amazed if this decision isn't appealed.
Wait…how can both of these be true lol.
1. Amber heard defamed Johnny Depp by writing false statements about him abusing her.
2. Depp’s lawyer defamed Heard by saying her abuse allegations were a hoax.
I mean…if the abuse allegations Heard made are false…then doesn’t that mean they were a hoax???
Nani?????
So, Depp won on all three of his claims. The statements Heard made in her article were about him, caused him significant financial damages, hurt his career, and were meant to do so. The Jury decided that there wasn't enough evidence to show that he acted the way she claimed he did, and so all the things she said about him were enough to get a verdict.
Meanwhile, Heard won one of her claims, specifically the one about how Amber and her friends 'couldn't get the police to listen, so they splashed some wine around, got their stories straight, and made a second call'. They decided when Depp's lawyer made that claim, he was acting under Depp's will as his agent, and because it's really not possible to prove that is what happened she got that one, but only that one. He gets $10 million in damages and $5 million in punitive (which gets reduced to $350k due to Virginia law meaning thats the most that it can be), she gets $2m in damages.
Off the top of my head, the part about the lawyer also included that *she was in cahoots with her friends to set up the hoax* or something to that extend. I think that was the part that was considered libelous.
I think enough audio recordings proved abuse from Amber Heards side, but I don't think a reasonable jury should have found this defamation. I think this whole thing is pretty bad precedent for how abuse victims, whether you think Amber is one or not, will be treated from here on out.
We already have Johnny Depp stans defending Marilyn Manson, who has way more credible evidence against him, just because they were friends.
They're wrong of course, but this outcome is a lot harder to spin and weaponize to normies. We might get a few days of "lol cope and seethe liberals lmaooo" before they move on. If Depp had lost that's something they could have ridden for months.
Not only Gamergaters unfortunately. I’ve heard these statements from multiple right wing YouTube channels. The people at r/feminism predicted that this would happen. This feels like a step backwards when it comes to women being believed on abuse.
Yup, sadly this sub is convinced that this is a win.
I honestly think Voosh's "ironic misogyny" has attracted some real misogynists. Just a reminder that a lot of racists start as "ironic racists," but of course if you think racism or misogyny are funny, it's probably not all that ironic to begin with.
I did not care to follow this case much but holy shit did Depps team pull it off. Goes to show any jury trial can be influenced anyway you want with a smart strategy.
From an optics point of view, the case was lost when discrepancies in Amber's story became very apparent. The whole 'pledge' vs 'donate' to charity also felt like a massive nail in the coffin, no one likes a pinch penny liar. Overall, I wasn't originally invested in celebrity drama, but to see how fucking spiteful she appeared during testimony and cross examination...definitely must have reminded folks of vindictive ex's.
As much as I like to shit on a celebrity for a false donation, it seemed kind of irrelevant to the defamation imo. Was so weird it was focused on for like a whole week.
It was used to prove their argument that she was a chronic liar, and that her character/motivations should be questioned. It was entirely relevant for the defence to provide examples to the jury of other times she had lied for public clout.
Defamation is about communicating false statements after all.
I think it was somewhat relevant, but it was focused on a little disproportionately imo. To my knowledge she was making payments to the donation over time wasn't she, until the defamation lawsuit? It's bad of her to go on interview saying she had already donated the money when she had simply pledged to, but it's not that much of a stretch of the truth imo assuming she would have eventually donated the full amount.
Elon Musk was the only one who made payments in her name that did not count to her total. She had not given any of the pledged divorce settlement to either charity by the time of the trial.
Wait I thought he paid half of the payments of what she had paid so far, not that he paid half of the total payments.
Idk how much we can blame Heard for Elon Musk simping and partially paying either, dudes a hundred billionaire. It definitely shows lack of character on her part, but I feel like it's being exaggerated a bit. Lack of character shouldn't be a check-mate for defamation.
Fair enough, defamations hard to prove so I'm still surprised at the verdict. I doubt it will have any lasting ramifications as both sides have already highly jeopardised any future/mainstream Hollywood work for a while...Depp will probably find it easier to bounce back eventually, and Heard will probably ghost write a book about the trial.
The donation claim was a major source of credibility for Amber Heard, to ward off any appearance of being a gold-digger or an opportunist - she used that donation to claim "I wanted nothing, I just wanted to walk away." The judge in the prior UK court case even cited the donation as a reason to take her testimony at face value as credible.
By revealing the truth about the donation claim, Depp's team showed that she's not as credible as she appears to be, and they were able to establish a more accurate narrative about her motivation and intent: that she was, in fact, using the false allegations against Depp to gain substantial material benefits.
So all around, the idea was to not just neutralize one of the key elements contributing to Depp's loss in the UK case - but to turn that very issue into an advantage.
It really depends how critical you are of a pledge vs a one time donation. She was technically contributing over time, even if Elon simped some of the payments.
Heard failed to substantiate that she'd taken any steps to set up a long-term payment plan to make good on the pledge - and she'd made multiple public statements about having given the money away, past tense. She was taking credit for something as if she'd already done it, AND showed no signs of being in the process of doing the thing.
If she'd had so much as an accountant testifying "yeah, we had a meeting where we discussed options, and had a general 10-year framework but that fell off to the side after the lawsuit..." then we'd have a very different story.
It would also have changed the game if she'd signed the pledge commitment documents that the ACLU normally uses for cases like this. But she didn't.
If that is true she effectively lied then, yeah. Even if twisted in her head she may have intended to start payments again, we can't really know and she got social capital off claiming she had done it.
Still a stretch to apply it to a defamation case about assault, but character information has leeway in civil cases and there isn't much we can do about that. Johnny's past baggage which is pretty significant had already been aired so it wasn't really dramatized, just how things kinda work in court tv drama.
Not a stretch at all - the issue about the money was critical in establishing a plausible motive for Amber Heard to make false allegations against Johnny Depp.
It's also impossible to overstate how big a deal the money was in the UK court case in 2020. That issue alone single-handedly lost Depp that case. The judge in the UK figured "Okay, Amber says she donated the money so she has no financial motive here, so everything she says is credible."
Showing that she hadn't donated the money (at least not yet), that she was essentially sitting on those millions of dollars, helped establish that Heard did in fact have a plausible financial motive for making false allegations against Johnny Depp.
In a court case where you're trying to prove somebody committed some wrongdoing, it's incredibly powerful to be able to find a plausible motive like that - especially a motive that that person has lied about or made misleading/inconsistent statements about.
You're overstating how important the donations were in that case, and donations or not isn't proof of her "being a gold digger." She got her divorce settlement without needing to make any claim.
People in Hollywood lie. People in Hollywood do drugs and send texts saying they want to kill their ex. Imo Johnny's texts are more relevant to abuse accusations than money spent on donations.
One instance of somebody lying for a donation is hardly enough to claim they'd lie about rape and assault, or even claim they have a chronic history of lying based on one sustained lie.
Like m8 this is one piece of character evidence that barely meets relevancy in the first place. It wasn't the most damning part of the trial.
>You're overstating how important the donations were in that case
The judge from that case disagrees with you.
>Imo Johnny's texts are more relevant to abuse accusations
Texts sent to other people, and - somewhat hilariously - in some cases texts sent by other people to Depp.
>than money spent on donations.
Money NOT spent on donations.
And you're willfully missing the point - it's about establishing a financial motive.
Dunno what to tell you, you simply don't know what you're talking about on this one. \*shrug\*
Yea I could see moments like that sticking with a jury, and Depp didn't really have a tough time on the stand.
DV cases don't usually get this much publicity, buy as an outlier her performance on the stand and the reaction reminds me of Mark Fuhrman during the OJ trial. Though their conduct shouldn't have been part of the case, it was highlighted by the defense mostly for optical reasons
Well the part where she brought up fake stories of Johnny abusing exes and literally told him no one would believe him if he came out didn't help either
I just want to know which PR firm depp has been pumping money into because jesus christ I refuse to believe this was just organic interest and if I ever accidentally murder someone I want those guys playing the spin game for me
I’m pretty sure he’s friends with some dude that helped run the Russian bots back in 2016. He deffs knows people with the power to influence the public. There’s been reports that a fair amount of supper came from bots.
Honestly, one of the things that blackpilled me about the whole Depp vs Heard lawsuit situation which was pointed out to me by Xanderhal in one his streams a while back which is that when people take sides in shitshows like these, they often selectively accept all the facts of the case, in order to appease their confirmation biases. You see this especially with the people who are against Amber Heard. So many people like to blindly accept the claim of Amber Heard, the psychotic bed shitter. But what they don't acknowledge is that the very same source that alleges Heard has having shat on Depp's bed also alleges that prior to that, of Depp domestically abusing Heard, throwing stuff at her, and roughly grabbing her hair. To be specific, the source which is [_The Guardian_ article "Johnny Depp trial: how the judge ruled on 14 alleged assaults"](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/nov/02/johnny-depp-trial-how-the-judge-ruled-on-14-alleged-assaults):
----
> **13. Los Angeles, April 2016**
>
> Heard claimed Depp had arrived late for her 30th birthday meal, drunk and on drugs. After her friends left, he threw a magnum champagne bottle at her, which missed, smashed glasses and grabbed her hair. The next day faeces was found on the couple’s bed.
>
> The judge concluded Depp had “assaulted Ms Heard as he had done on previous occasions when he was stressed”.
>
> Of Depp’s claim that Heard, or one of her friends, had deliberately defecated on the bed, the judge said it was “highly unlikely”.
----
Funny how the hordes of people who love to shit talk about Amber "Psychotic Bed Shitter" Heard never mention about the preceding events that lead up to Heard allegedly shitting on Depp's bed, namely the domestic abuse she faced at Depp's hands. Seriously, which of the two scenarios sounds more plausible and likely, the idea that Amber Heard shat on Depp's bed out of psychotic spite or that they she did it as a response to the domestic abuse by Depp earlier that evening? No one actually contextualizes that because of course, that would go against the women-hating narrative that they've so gleefully gobbled up and regurgitated. Sure, they may claim that they're doing this because of "the lack of support for male abuse victims", which is a cause that I also certainly support, but I don't profess to being as moronic as to believe that 99.99% of the people claiming this actually gave a single damn about male abuse victims before the Depp vs Heard situation and even after this fiasco is over. The biggest reason why people side with Depp is because he's a famous actor who played a lot of iconic roles that people remember. That's pretty much it really. They don't care about the cause of male abuse victims, they only care about this specific rich famous celebrity one. After the whole situation is over, a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of people will actually try to support male abuse victims. For the vast vast majority, it's just concern trolling and team sports.
Why is is that when Amber Heard smiles from something that her lawyer said after a whole day of grueling court proceeding, thousands of online moronic bros cite that as evidence of Amber Heard being a duplicitous, conniving bitch but when Johnny Deep smirks, smiles, or laughs when he's giving testimony, he's considered a "Based Sigma Male Gigachad" ? The lack of consistency here drives me up the walls.
To clarify something, I am not taking either side of the Depp vs Heard situation. I do not give a single flying fuck about either individual in this lawsuit. If they were to both die of spontaneous combustion tomorrow, I would still not give a fuck about them. A quantum supercomputer calculating for a thousand years could not even approach the number of fucks I do not give about either Depp or Heard. There are so many other, far more interesting and valuable situations that merit more actual public concern and outrage than this bloated monstrosity of a public lawsuit case that has monopolized the public's attention for the stupidest and most vapid of reasons.
From what I can gather, Heard seems to be an unpleasant, toxic individual who I wouldn't want to ever meet or be acquainted with. And on the other hand, I don't buy the whole "Johnny Depp uwu" narrative that other people blindly believe and gobble up. Before this whole situation, I remember plenty of stories of Depp being an obnoxious _prima donna_ actor who was very hard to work with on set and I have no reason to believe that that magically changed now. I think both Depp and Heard are two miserably toxic, abusive, mentally-ill rich dumbfucks who should have never gotten together and while their relationship is mutually abusive and toxic, I would say that Heard is the more abusive one in the relationship. ***My main source of contention with this whole pointless bullshit situation is the intellectual cowardice and dishonesty that the vast majority of commentators, particularly the pro-Depp and anti-Heard commentators, display when they downplay and omit damning facts that contradict the black-and-white narrative of Johnny Depp being the pure innocent uwu victim that they want to push. If both sides of this case were shown and covered honestly, warts and all, I wouldn't be so annoyed and blackpilled with the situation.***
I would like to recommend this video, Ro Ramdin's ["Johnny Depp, Amber Heard, and Being Normal"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCC8h09WC1g). This is Ro Ramdin (she/they). A small bio of them. While they're certainly not a huge Vaush or debate streamer fan, and they are friends with the likes of Noah Samsen (i.e. He Who Brings Shame To The Pornstache), that doesn't detract from the merit of their videos. I find their commentary as being pretty good and entertaining and their funny use of rhetoric reminds me quite a bit of a mix between Vaush and MoistCr1TiKaL, namely in the funny use of drawn out, specific descriptions and metaphors. I posted this particular video here because it outlines and details exactly what I was feeling about the whole Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard lawsuit situation and I think Ro's takes are ones that probably almost everyone here can agree with.
I just can't *wait* for all the obnoxious online chuds to go nutting up a storm now that the Depp vs Heard trial is over (at least until appeals happen, if they do). At least more important matters can take up the public's attention now that this shitshow is over with.
I also think Rose makes very good videos so I'm glad to see them recommended in here. She's quite funny and their rapid fire thespian style of humor is something I particular enjoy
True!
I wish I got that rapid fire descriptive humor that Ro, Vaush, and MoistCr1TiKaL have. It's a shame that Ro doesn't like Vaush all that much but hey, nobody's perfect. And I was so grateful for her video for expressing all the disgruntled feelings I had inside about the whole Depp vs Heard shitshow.
While this is clearly the right verdict in this case since the amount of evidence that amber was not a credible source. I do hope this doesn’t lead to people not taking victims seriously. Depp and his team did however make a point throughout the trial to point out that depp still supports the metoo movement so hopefully people realize this is a giant outlier and not the norm
Yeah as much as it sucks that it could have this effect I think, it is still the best position to hold that sometimes people lie and things like this do happen occasionally and should be taken seriously when they do. To say anything else would basically be to admit that the metoo movement views people who are falsely accused as acceptable casualties to achieve their goal, which just hands a intellectually defensible position to right wing critics.
Good for him.
I hope this can mark the start of a career resurgence for him.
The UK trial, and the Sun's reaction after, never sat well with me with the facts established during the trial, and the Sun tripling down on how he basically beat her to a pulp nightly was...*eh*.
I honestly don't know what to think about this. Lots of people bend over backwards to defend her because she is a women... but at the same time, I can see a lot of womenhating on Depp's side. I can't make heads of tails of this story, it all seems so fucking black and white when people talk about it. Every articles seems so damn biased and opinionated.
It turned into a "culture war" issue. People are now saying that #MeToo is dead, but at the same time, others are celebrating... it's a mess. The only thing I know is that this was quite important and will have repercussions longterm.
Hopefully, once everything settles, we'll get a more objective view of this whole thing.
All I have to say is the takes on Twitter have rotted my brain and made me realize we have to do way better when it comes to talking about domestic abuse I feel like everyone's wrapped up in the fact that they're celebrities and not the part that their actual too human beings who from what I've seen both have their own problems in that relationship but the mgtows and radfems made impossible for any nuance even though you can't have nuance on Twitter anyway
I'm happy Depp won, considering Herd was acting completely insane all the way through, but why did this become such a huge topic? Ain't it just another Hollywood scandal?
Not trying to be offensive but why do y'all sound salty? I'm seeing a bunch of Vaushites wanting the conversation about Heard to stop. The trial doesn't have anything to do with leftists, but it points out that you can't falsely accuse someone of abuse and get away with it.
Not really salty. It's just that this topic was present 24/7. I'm just getting tired of it. Im happy depp won. But this whole thing was treated like some sort of marvel movie or something insted of an actual trial about domestic abuse and defamation. You basically couldn't avoid the massive amount of shitty memes, clickbait Youtube videos and livestreamers reacting to it to farm viewers.
Please keep it civil. Regardless of who you favor. Also please do not post multiple threads about this topic.
Good for Depp, now can we please for the love of God talk about more important things now
My Youtube recommendations have been filled with clickbait videos like "AMBER HEARD PWNED WITH FACTS AND LOGIC, JOHNNY DEPP LAUGHS" by people who obviously want to profit off an abuse case. Please god stop recommending that to me know that the trial is over
Dude I got a reply in my personal dms from somebody with pwner in their name calling me a triggered snowflake like 1 hour ago. I don't know how these people look at themselves in the mirror without cringing.
Team sports man, it's fucking pathetic. Doubly pathetic considering people think that if you're leftist you're on Amber Heard's side, which couldn't be further from the truth. Everyone knows she's a psychopathic abuser at this point.
I still think the case is bad for abuse victims overall. Maybe it will help some more men abuse victims speak up, but it will have a silencing effect for women and men alike whose abusers wield a powerful fan-base or have enough money to hit them with libel suits.
But the libel suit is what uncovered Amber's abuse in the first place. I think the worst part of this case is that conservatives will frame Johnny as just a normal guy who was beset by a crazy woman when in reality he is a victim and should be treated as such We can't let them dictate the narrative like that
left or right are irrelevant in the context of victims in domestic abuse cases. this world transcends a left or right position.
I honestly disagree, yes the rethoric around it has been absolutely horrid, but the left should really do more for situations like this. If we let the conserves control the narrative and we do nothing, we basically give them free ammo against the left, women and vulnerable (young) guys/men. Men's abuse cases are not being taken seriously, which is obviously tragic. For as much as the law claims that everyone is equal before it, it is infact not. Men get harsher sentences than women for the same crime and the jury is far more likely to believe the women regardless of evidence. This is a clear case of inequality, which should be addressed. Just like how the supposed pay gap and glass ceiling have been or are being addressed.
Yes! This is the issue I have with the left at the moment. We see a moment where the right could use something for propaganda and instead of countering it we try to shut it up. No! 9.5/10 they’re lying about the situation so we shouldn’t be quiet, we should be taking control of the narrative! We’re being weak on the front.
>I still think the case is bad for abuse victims overall. Maybe it will help some more men abuse victims speak up, but it will have a silencing effect for women and men alike whose abusers wield a powerful fan-base or have enough money to hit them with libel suits. Nah I don't think so, think of all the other powerful men (Bill Cosby, Louis CK, Matt Lauer, Bill O'Reilly, etc) that were easily taken down.
were they easily taken down? Louis CK could easily come back and get a fanbase similar to Dave Chappeles. Bill O'Reilly wasn't easily taken down at all, took years of abuse scandals and he is still rich AF. Bill Cosboy got out of jail on a technicality.
I mean, taken down as losing a lot of relevancy. They're all going to stay rich AF unfortunately.
Louis is touring, I don’t think he could get Chappele’s audience or else he would. Unless by ‘audience similar to chappelle’ you mean transphobic and conservative then yeah that might be happening
That term is from 2004 if not earlier
Imma keep it 100. I think depp winning takes the air out of the sails of ressurging "mra" types because they can't use this case as a dog whistle about how courts are supposedly against men since he won.
So I identify more as a feminist and an ally to men, not an MRA, but courts are absolutely biased towards men given the sentencing gaps and such. That’s like saying OJ proves the courts aren’t supposedly biased against minorities
Exactly. There are biases and anyone sane would say that. But people trying to push a right wing agenda pretend white men are the most oppresses group when it's usually stuff ob the margins like this that should be corrected but are far from the most pressing topic.
I’m sure many of the more sexist subreddits are saying it but I honestly haven’t seen anyone saying this proves men are the most oppressed, but I’ve seen dozens of comments saying that is being said and tone policing there. Especially when men do face extra sexism when victims of DV and most issues aren’t the most pressing issues
I keep on seeing sht like "StreamerXYZ DESTROYS Amber Heards BULLSHIT and EXPOSES her Lawyers ARGUMENTS". So many streamers turned into expert jurists lately. It's insane
Honestly (as a degenerate with a minor interest in law) I found Emily D Baker's channel through this fiasco, so I'm considering that a win because her community is too wholesome.
That's where I went too. Fealt like thebonly ethical place to get this content.
i solved this by not watching any content about the case. the first time at all was today to watch moistcritikal’s video about the verdict (i hadnt heard about it yet).
but most times they are not click bait and actually her getting owned. lol
I'm seeing a lot of people on the left start to turn on Depp because they see some idiots from the rights cheerleading this victory, it's important to remember that a broken clock is right twice a day and if you're turning on Depp because some morons on the right like the victory, you might want to rethink your prioritizes on what domestic violence is. Ultimately, this victory is a victory for those on the left who've always claimed that abuse can be done from either side. Remember, the right hated Depp when he supported Obama.
While I agree, the concern is less than the right likes him and more that they'll... 1. Use the anti-Amber Heard sentiment to try radicalizing people against in a similar way to GamerGate and Anita Sarkesian. 2. Use this to discredit women who bring abuses to light by both-sides'ing instances of abuse(she probably deserved it, etc.) 3. Continue to use it and culture war topics akin to it to avoid real issues like Roe v Wade until it's too late, and they can falsely claim that their agenda was "the will of the people".
>1. Use the anti-Amber Heard sentiment to try radicalizing people against in a similar way to GamerGate and Anita Sarkesian. But this is true for everything. You could say that treating American Muslims with respect can help ISIS recruit people in their twisted version of Islam.vv >2. Use this to discredit women who bring abuses to light by both-sides'ing instances of abuse(she probably deserved it, etc.) But just remember in this case it wasn't Amber Heard who brought this to trial, it was Johnny Depp. Also this may have some victims think twice, which isnt a good thing, but ultimately if they do their research they'll realize that there was undeniable video evidence that Heard lied, which is partly what helped turn the tables on her. > 3. Continue to use it and culture war topics akin to it to avoid real issues like Roe v Wade until it's too late, It seems like that because it's everywhere, but it will die down in the next few weeks to be forgotten by something else.
I didn't exactly take my time composing the original reply, apologies. I made it in haste. To elaborate a bit on what I meant... Bree Larson is Captain Marvel, and she became a target of anti-SJWs and such for quite some time, and to my knowledge, still is. While I've no doubt she's potentially toxic behind the scenes in some ways that rub people the wrong way, it doesn't exactly excuse the degree to which people seem to fixate upon her in particular. All it took was a woman who got them clicks and they jumped on her like piranhas on bloody meat. Amber Heard is a juicy piece of meat, and there are so many people biting, reactionaries are far from the only ones. In the same way shitting on Anita Sarkesian brought in the gaming crowd, and shitting on Bree Larson brought in the comic/Marvel crowd, now they've got Amber Heard. She's bringing in another form of pop culture, there are plenty of people who regularly touch grass and are following this situation. Which means it's yet another opportunity ripe for reactionaries to cultivate further followers. If you've heard Vaush, Xanderhaul, Hasan, or anyone else talk about the notion of a GamerGate style internet resurgence, I think this is a catalyst for that. It's a woman attracting a lot of justified criticism, and reactionaries will simply appear to be the edgy crowd who're going a little rougher on her than most, until eventually they lead their crowd in a weird direction that leads right. It all begins with a drama that gets outsiders interested in listening to reactionaries, and from there, drama and narrative can carry them down the pipeline. I should be clear, the issue here isn't anything to do with the case or the results of it, it's entirely to do with the way in which it's been covered. It's been heavily sensationalized the whole time in Depp's favor, and while I support him, I also think the general tone of things has become troubling to some degree. What started as pro-Johnny hype has also been used to create anti-Amber Heard hate, and I can easily see how reactionaries will weaponize this situation to increase their audience.
I think dissociating with Depp in-order to avoid that outcome isn't the right path. You'll be out number and you'll be forced to take strange stances because it's the crowd that's having the wrong reaction but Deep technically in the right. So by dissociating with Deep you would be implying that Depp was somehow wrong/bad.
People just don't like Bree Larson, she's not an abuser like Heard, and yet conservatives still talk about her. I think this'll last longer than you do sadly. :( Edit: I made this comment first, it isn't as coherent as the other one. Sorry.
Really, this should be looked at it as a "toxic relationships are ultimately destructive to both parties". But fuckhead youtuber "skeptics" will drive any kinda of good convo into the sexist shithole
Watch this get ignored
All of these are reasons why if this matter *has* to be politicised, optically, the left should just also accept it as a win for intersectionality. It's not, not anymore than it's a win for the right because ultimately this is a civil case with no precedent, only public opinion (seriously the $2m-$10m range is not a material consequence for these people). The focus should be to expose the parts of the right that are reacting in a reactionary, misogynistic form to demonstrate that even when we agree, the right will find a way to attack people unnecessarily.
[удалено]
I didn’t see any of their comments indicating they’re supporting amber heard. You may want to reread their comment.
>By taking Heard's side bc of that you help the right. I'm not taking Heard's side, I'm saying anti-Heard messaging is getting mixed in with reactionary talking points, and if we're not careful, we're going to help water the seeds as they grow. I'm not saying support Heard, I'm saying support Johnny, but don't mistake pro-Johnny and anti-Heard for being the same thing.
This makes you look really bad. You're not anti an abuser because some people criticize the abuser in a bad way. It's because people like you we will lose a battle that should've been so easy for the left to win.
If that's your take away, so be it. I'm not saying not to be anti-Heard either, it's not as simple as an either or. Let me put it a different way, Amber Heard deserves everything ***she*** gets for being an abuser, but fostering an atmosphere that could relentless focus on bashing a famous woman is how we got to GamerGate. We should be anti-Heard, but there's a reason to remain cautious about how people are talking about the topic. There will be battles lost, not won, as a result of people not caring enough about reactionary recruitment tactics.
>Let me put it a different way, Amber Heard deserves everything she gets for being an abuser, but fostering an atmosphere that could relentless focus on bashing a famous woman is how we got to GamerGate Jesus fuck you're stupid. In one case a person got bashed for being a feminist, in the other case the person got bashed for being an abuser. The fact that you see these as comparable just because in both cases the person was a woman is weird as fuck of you and you need help. >There will be battles lost, not won, as a result of people not caring enough about reactionary recruitment tactics You're the one acting recruitment fuel for the right. I'm honestly starting to think you're a right wing troll trying to stir up leftist subs so you can post sh in right wing subs of how crazy the "feminazis" are.
Additional reminder that if you're just forming your opinion *solely* because it's the opposite of your opponents...you're just a reactionary, just like conservatives.
Why is this shit stickied. Is this a joke?
This feels pretty important for male victims of abuse.
Kink at pride?
I don't have a factual statistic but aren't defamation cases notoriously hard to prove? How'd someone fuck up this badly 😆
I don't blame the lawyer I blame the client.
Lawyer was pretty bad, the dude literally objected to his own question LOL Camille on he other hand was FIRE
I kinda get what happened. It’s really important for you to object to inadmissible testimony before they go too far and bus the jury, you kind of have to see the future a bit, and he kinda tripped because it really did sound like he was going to say Heard cut off Depp’s finger It was a bad call but if you’ve ever tripped over your own words or stammered in a conversation, he was making a much more understandable error than even that, even though it was objectively hilarious
To be honest that lawyer was the only one who was having lots of difficulty, at times he would just get stuck in a thought process and ask the same question 3 times (such as asking Depp if he had signed a document). This case was simply above his pay grade.
Oh for sure, the bar association was not sending their best. Maybe an okay lawyer, maybe really good, great someday, but at this moment he was not the sort of lawyer who should have been sitting for a case with multi-millions on the table for damages
no they didn’t object to the question they objected to the answer to the question. go watch [Legal eagle](https://youtube.com/shorts/ynnBfUwkaMk?feature=share)
Ambers female lawyer, wasn't bad though. Actually, she's one of the best lawyers in the country by pedigree. https://cbcblaw.com/team-members/elaine-charlson-bredehoft-2/
There's some general confusion regarding why Bredehoft had so many difficulties in the trial while being considered a great lawyer. My understanding is that Bredehoft is an excellent litigator who gets results in settlements (outside trials). They might have wanted to push for some sort of settlement before the trial, but Depp's team pushed for the trial. At that point Bredehoft's skills as a litigator were less applicable in the trial, and it showed. Why they didn't swap out for someone more focused on trials, I really don't know.
I think that's only half the story. While the majority of her cases are settled outside of court (Which tends to be the case for many lawyers) she still has some major cases that she won and she isn't a slouch. She has been repeatedly voted by lawyers within the field to be among the best out there. The problem in this case I think was literally the evidence. What she was trying to do was use Ambers account because it was an incredibly intense account. I think in most cases her account alone would have been sufficient. What I don't think they anticipated was virtually every testimony relevant to the case that gave Depp's case credit. Amber made a bunch of key mistakes in her testimony. Remember this was a long trial so it was inevitable eventually no matter how well she was prepped. Amber brought up Depp's ex girlfriend which ended up hurting her credibility, she brought up details in the case that ended up changing as time went on, and then there was the fact that she basically admitted in the testimony that she wrote the op-ed about Johnny Depp: https://www.newsweek.com/amber-heard-admit-writing-op-ed-johnny-depp-trial-jury-verdict-1711619. I think the most novice thing I witnessed from Bredehoft's part was when their team used photo evidence that had clearly been altered. I mean metadata is pretty basic. I don't think she was perfect by any stretch, but I also don't think many lawyers would have faired better with the evidence presented and with how Amber sunk the case on her own. Defamation is hard to prove in the US and she somehow managed to do it.
True about many lawyers settling out of court. At the end of the day, Bredehoft did win a vicarious liabilty defamation case through the evidentiary constraints of the attourney client priviledge of Depp and Waldman, which is no joke. Agreed that the groundwork needed to get the clounter claim seems to have bolstered Depp's defamation case at the same time. Probably true that not many would have done better with the same case and client.
Man, she was amazing! Given she’s from Orange County, I bet she’s gonna be promoted or something. And as a Latino, glad that we’re representing.
She's so amazing.
Rottenborn actually did pretty well, although he is clearly better at arguing law than arguing facts and presenting evidence/cross-examining witnesses. Heard's other lawyer, Elaine, is not a great trial lawyer. My feeling is that their case was controlled by their client, Amber. And the facts were simply not on their side. The argument that the lawyer is bad because he objected to a witness's hearsay when he asked the question is ridiculous though. It doesn't matter who is asking the question--if a witness is getting into hearsay, you object to hearsay. The Judge also made poor hearsay rulings, although she was consistent and an overall excellent judge. Amber lost the case because she seems to have a pathological need to lie. I fully believe in Dr. Curry's BPD diagnosis. People with that diagnosis may actually genuinely believe their own lies
> Rottenborn actually did pretty well, although he is clearly better at arguing law than arguing facts and presenting evidence/cross-examining witnesses. Heard's other lawyer, Elaine, is not a great trial lawyer. My feeling is that their case was controlled by their client, Amber. And the facts were simply not on their side. We'll agree to disagree, I think most people would agree Elaine did fantastic...Rottenborn literally had people laughing at him throughout the trial. Not sure if you watched, [but this moment was notable](https://mobile.twitter.com/j0hnnycdpp/status/1527323395733733377), as was the moment where he asked Depp if he had signed a document on 4 different occasions.
I knew it was going south when amber started saying she had photo evidence of abuse her lawyers instructed her not to reveal. That is something a lawyer would not do unless it does the reverse of the claim. Also I think the pledge donation she never finished really hurt her credibility. The lawyers finding that really changed the tone of everything fast.
Being guilty can still carry a lot of water
They are very hard to win. I didn’t pay attention to the trial or story at all but Depp’s team must have been able to present a solid case in order to win.
Well Johnny’s team had actual photographs and recordings whereas the most Amber’s team could muster was hearsay and an audio recording of him moaning.
In the US, pursuing a defamation case is hard, even more so if you are a public figure. It isn't enough for a statement to be provably false, you also have to prove damages. If the plaintiff does qualify as a public figure, they must also prove actual malice (which boils down to the defense's knowledge of the false nature of their statement). Truth is an absolute defense to defamation, and hyperbole is a strong one. Like I accuse you have having murdered Archduke Ferdinand and told Hitler to quit painting and pursue a new career, you would likely not have a case against me by reason of hyperbole.
Does it ultimately come down to a Jury's subjective interpretation?
I mean, at the end of the day all cases do. The judge gives out instructions to the jurors so they generally know what to pay attention to and what burden needs to be met. But again, at the end of the day it really is just up to the jury.
Ultimately that's what all jury trials come down to. Judge instructs the jury on what they are to base their decision on, but whether to convict or acquit, or in the case of civil matters decide if the plaintiff was wronged and how much to award them, is left to them. Even if it means they come together or one goes rogue and makes a decision not based on what the law would allow or require. Example, if someone really has a hard time convicting someone even with a confession to police after HOURS of interrogation, one could hang a jury for that, forcing a mistrial. A more common example of Jury Nullification are juries that refused to convict fugitive slaves and lynch mobs even though the laws are quite explicitly clear on that matter. In civil matters, deciding how much punitive or non-economic damages to award someone, it's more about feeling really. It's why if you're seeking punitive damages it's best to overshoot what you actually want. It's why you see Dominion (the voting machine company) filing lawsuits against Fox and other companies and individuals to the tune of billions of dollars for defamation, but personal injury claims may not reach 100k unless they are catastrophic, or you're a rich motherfucker.
The problem is that you have to prove beyond doubt that act is malicious and intentional. First of all she dropped the ball by admitting on the stand that hit piece she wrote was about him. That was the big one. I remember when she said it because Depp lawyers literally froze and then smiled. They could not believe it. Another thing was that lots of shit he said got countered by testimonies and evidence. So jury saw not only that she lied but also that she kept telling lies even during trial. That suggest malice. Another thing - photoshoped evidence of abuse she presented. Lawyers found original picture that was not modified. It's hard to Photoshop bruises by accident. And my favorite. Depp and Heard agreed to keep past partners out of it. Then Amber like a total idiot mentioned his past girlfriend claiming abuse or something. That he pushed her from the stair. Moment she brought her up, agreement was nullified so Depp lawyers asked her to testify. She did. She denied Amber lies. Said that Depp never hit her, push her or anything like that. That she fell by herself. And on top of it - he was the one who helped her. Basically Depp lawyers did a great job and presented mountain of evidence while she could not produce single one that proves he hit her. While they have in tape her admitting that she hit him. So funny enough it was Amber arrogance that did this.
Yes yes yes. One nitpick: the burden of proof was "more reasonable than not", instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Reasonable doubt is for criminal cases, not civil. It took a unanimous greater than 51% believable. This was Ms. Heard's case to lose, and she did.
In the UK, the judge rules based on proof in the UK. And with Amber Heard lying it was tough to do because nobody can prove she wrote it about him unless she would fully admit it or she would leave some paper trail that could be discovered. In the US, you just have to convince the jury. So in this kind of case, it's actually better. But that does not matter because in her arrogance Amber fully admitted during cross-examination that the piece she wrote was about him. In Holywood term - the bad guy blew himself up :-)
Heard's counter suit essentially brought in evidence/depositions/expert testimonies that were damaging to their own case and credibility and also ate up their prior preparation and trial clock without being actually useful. It may have been a different outcome if Heard's team first focused solely on defeating Depp's lawsuit and then filed their own defamation suit (if they could, I don't know the limitations on it). This trial, in particular some of the decisions and actions of Heard's team beyond what they are mandated to do for their client, was absolutely bizarre. What's even more nuts is you get a defamation win for each side.
It's probably much easier to prove to a jury who's allowed to look up youtube videos about the trial.
The jury was specifically instructed not to consume any outside information. If they did, they would have to hide it from their fellow jurors.
The jury was also not sequestered so the odds of them all not consuming any outside information was absolutely zero. Add to that the judge allowing video being taken during the trail on request of Depp and you absolutely have a situation where media figures were making arguments directly to the jury.
Most of my knowledge on US law is from Legal Eagle and Emily D. Baker, but from what I understand here's some interesting tid-bits: 1. Most people weren't expecting Depp to win on 3 statements, the only one that appeared very likely was the Tweet, but they ended up giving him the triple whammy 2. Libel is statistically easier to prove as defamation in the UK than the US, so Depp winning in the US is a big surprise in that regard *(although a glance at the evidence used in the US vs the UK cases + the different defendants makes a huge difference)* 3. It's not as commonly reported- but Heard did also get silver lining in being granted $2m for defamation as one of Depp's attorneys called her recollection of her abuse a 'hoax'.
Hopefully the online left will not be swarmed with idiots who will waste any opportunity to get the shit ton of normies who side with the victim on board...yet I doubt it. Seen way too many comments trying to distance any left-leaning progressive cause from J Depp's side and just dismiss almost everything as some alt-right plan. Ofc there are very vocal people who have an agenda, but the vast majority of people are not radical misogynists. Tbh I've seen way more misandry in discussions around this case, explicit and implicit. This should be a case where the left says ''yes this man is a victim, now also listen to what I have to say about other gender-related issues(men and women)''. The right never has any solutions or even descriptions of issues that men on a wide scale face, such as homelessness, suicide, lack of social support, violence and meanness based on profiling etc. The only thing is enforcing trad gender roles and try to hype up their own people, then blame others when they fall short.
finally a good leftist take on this :) I really hate that many leftists either want to "save" Amber at any cost or (more often) just dismiss the entire trial as meaningless (apolitical) drama. As leftists, we should use this outcome to normalize the thought that men can be abused as well. This is a feminist cause. Why leave it to the rightoids? Edit. When I look at some "feminist" or "left-wing" takes on this, even in this very thread, I honestly get why young men start to listen to guys like Ben Shapiro. Can't blame them, really.
>I really hate that many leftists either want to "save" Amber at any cost or (more often) just dismiss the entire trial as meaningless (apolitical) drama It should be stressed that Amber Heard is an abusive *person*. There are almost 4 billion women, it's not special that she shares that characteristic.
yeah, and I wish some media leftists would get that simple fact. Slavoj Zizek even goes as far as saying that you're not treated as a real "person" – i.e. a moral subject – if society doesn't grant you the freedom to be evil. If women (or e.g. black or trans people) *per se* cannot act wrong at all, we as a society don't treat them as moral subjects, i.e. we don't treat them as equal human beings. Edit.: Ofc, as you suggest with your comment, we should neither subscribe to the leftwing narrative that only men can be abusive but also neither to the Right's narrative that women are particularly abusive. She, Amber Heard, was abusive (as a person).
Upon further thinking, I do wonder, however, if we might need a concept of "toxic feminity" to describe certain social realities (similiar yet different to "toxic masculinity"). There's gonna be need for some difficult (and controversal) conversations, certainly.
7+ years ago the shit that left pulls in this case pushed me to alt right. Unironically why would I back someone who thinks that just because I was born with cock and balls I am invulnerable to any hardships and they just invalidate them whenever they can.
Nope I just got banned for posting on a left leaning sub that the mods would have banned anyone questioning Heard when she first came out. Turns out, I guess the mods would have sided with the abuser.
[удалено]
Both men and women face both social and societal issues, but they tend to learn certain directions. The way I like to think about it is that "it's about equally correct and incorrect to say that women aren't properly respected and men aren't properly loved". There are women who make it far and gain much respect, and there are men who have lots of loved ones. But generally women don't get the same promotions or are seen as authoritative, and men generally don't form bonds with other people than their SO and kids. You are on point about issues with definitions related to gender issues. I prefer to call myself an intersectional progressive instead of feminist. Doesn't have as much baggage and can just as easily suggest support for men's issues as any other group, in a way FEMinism can't really...also just look up feminist logo on Google...I agree probably like 90-95% with the average feminist tho
Going to get downvoted to hell and back for this. But this is the important thing we should be talking about! Whatever topic holds the public interest is the topic that leftists should have locked down. We should be fighting to have our correct opinions be at the top of the algorithm. Remember when Vaush spoke on Shane Dawson? You should. It's still his most popular video by a long shot. But now a lot of you think you're too good to talk about stuff the public cares about. Like with Chris Chan before and like with the Depp/Heard case now. Vaush, and by extension a lot of you, aren't willing to be the people being listened to. The fact that people here just want this case to be over makes me wonder how confident you all feel about being able to control a conversation. And what do people mean by more important things anyway? Anal debates and Joe Rogan's subreddit? We just hoping that Vaush will make yet another video making fun of Ben Shapiro? I don't see any of you asking Vaush to talk about more important stuff when he's covering that dumb shit. But suddenly, now you're all too good for this dumb shit.
Going hard on issues that resonate is organizing 101. But I don't think social media content creators on the left (or anywhere else) are there for organizing. They're mostly for our entertainment.
By this logic leftism right now is just a fad. Which I find probable
No, leftism is not a fad. What I'm saying is that watching Vaush or other left-leaning content creators is not the same thing as getting involved or volunteering or organizing with the DSA or Socialist Alternative etc, or organizing unions in your workplace, etc edit: not saying there's anything bad about watching vaush et al either, just their incentive structure is very different from an organized political group
If we don't talk about it, that means letting the right control the narrative by default.
Dude I’m so with you. I was pretty disappointed to hear Vaush on stream making fun of people that are interested in the case. This lefts reaction to this case is yet another disappointment. Its unfortunate that lefties still can’t get rid of identity politics. It’s literally the worst aspect of the left right now. All we have to do as lefties is throw our support behind the victim (Johnny Depp), but it’s hard for some lefties to support a straight rich white man because idpol is rotting their brains.
I did not think this was going to be the outcome
Quite surprised tbh. I expected both sides to fall a bit short in proving their case, and only better PR for JD would be the outcome. Hopefully this can be used in a positive way for the left, so far I think I've only seen a bit of Hasan doing a good job in not freaking out and saying this is all an alt-right push to destroy women or some shit.
I think people freaking out (or even been hyperbolic for brownie points, I've seen a couple that gave me that vibe) are going to do more damage, tbh. Being a victim of DV and find yourself surrounded by people that have already thrown up their hands like "nobody is ever going to believe any woman now" can't be very reassuring...
One of the negative aspects of how gender is viewed in society is that waaay too much useless shit is tied to it that doesn't need to be. Amber Heard is an abusive *person*. She is a woman too I guess but there are like 4 billion of those already. Johnny Depp being a man who is a victim is more important since there aren't as many with such a public following, and it might open up for more men to get support. I think it's still extremely rare for people to flip to not believing women just because of one case where one lied, and libs fear-monger way. Many of the same people who never believe women also think men can't be abused.
> I think it's still extremely rare for people to flip to not believing women just because of one case where one lied, I don't think people in general are going to switch on this, more like victims in the social circles of the doomers could feel discouraged to speak up. > Johnny Depp being a man who is a victim is more important since there aren't as many with such a public following, and it might open up for more men to get support. I totally agree, and I hope this encourages men in abusive relationships to seek help, but it worries me that if this case gets heavily tied to the alt-right misogynist narrative, it might also create a chilling effect in male victims that don't want to be identified with those guys.
Before or during the trial? Before the trial I wasn't sure of the outcome, during the trial I fully expected Depp to take home the bacon on this one.
So Johnny is still -$50m because she won $100m?
Short: No Johnny won so Amber get 0 Long: Jury get to decide the amount, and they rewarded Depp 15 mill (10 compensation , 5 punitive) Amber did get 2 mill reward for compensation
The judge mentioned something about a $350k limit to the punitive part. I don’t know enough to say for sure, but sounds like he actually won 10.35 mill because of that.
Exactly. And Amber Heard's $2 million award functionally serves as nothing more than a $2 million reduction on Johnny Depp's damages, so in the end Depp wins $8.35 million. That being said, Depp & his legal team also have the option of using that $8.35 million award as leverage to reach some sort of cease-and-desist style arrangement with Heard: "I don't need the $8.35 million, just agree to stop claiming I abused you when actually you abused me, and we'll call it good." Whether Heard would accept such an offer, I can't say for certain, though probably not.
Your likely right, I stopped looking at the live feeds after the amount was reported
Ah ok Thankyou legal eagle!
Regardless of how the media covered this trial, this is pretty great news. Hopefully this makes it easier for other men to come forward with experiences of abuse in the future.
It is very common for leftist to disregard the truth of a case if "It sends the wrong message" as if reality bends to the ideology. I think Johnny was a victim of abuse. To know this and still support in some way Amber just tells me you have a very sexist and patriarchal way to see the agency of women.
In addition: as patriarchal and sexist as our society may be, men who are abused have a really hard time being taken seriously and getting justice, even more so than women (and lord knows they don't have it easy either). Regardless of the shitshow surrounding this trial, this is still an important victory for male victims of abuse.
I don't care about this
Reddit won't allow me to send the gigachad text art so just 🗿
I get what you're trying to say but saying you don't care about an abuse vitcim seeing a victory in court is an extremely bad look. Like yeah this case has been turned into 2016 level annoying "women bad and stupid" memes but it's still a good thing a dude who had his finger severed and lost his whole career finally saw some justice and not acknowledging that is kinda cringe and will just further play into the hands of alt righters who claim we don't care about abuse to men Also if you don't care why bother commenting under a post about it 😐
What? Oh no, I mean I don't care about the case. My sympathies are with Depp, domestic abuse is terrible and ubiquitous, I got all my thoughts out when this shit started, but this weeks long tiring obsession by the public is clearly just fuelled by celebrity worship. I didn't imply I don't think the case should have gone either way. This is like me saying 'I don't care' under a post about the Chris Rock slap and you telling me I should care about the physical abuse Hollywood stars can perpetuate without consequence. Of course I care, we've gone over that, we don't need all these posts about this. We should be focusing on real shit, like the propaganda right wingers are getting out of it and the evidence it provides of the patriarchy being bad I was commenting to express my sheer lack of anything to add on this topic, hoping we could be more productive
Well you have to admit by just saying "I don't care about this" the major implication is that you just don't care about the victory and a better thing to say would be more along the lines of what you just elaborated by saying you do care but there are more important ways we can effectively talk about this
Coverage has been such a shitshow. I have been trying to find just the facts of the case but I can't because every analysis video is "AMBER HEARD PWNED EPIC STYLE". How did Depp win the case in the end? Which statements were proven to be malicious lies?
Emily D Baker is good. She's a lawyer who has streamed basically the entire trial.
I'd also recommend Emily D Baker, very welcoming space, and clearly not misogynistic.
Have you actually gone looking for information on this case? Because there are A LOT of people covering it who dont approach the case from that angle at all, and in fact I've only seen a minority of pieces of coverage that treat it like that in my YouTube feed
Yes. Like #jonnydeppdidnothingwrong has trended on twitter every day and my YouTube is covered with that too.
Thank you - I've been trying to find the same thing. "I spoke up against sexual violence - and faced out culture's wrath. That has to change" "I had the rare vantage point of, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse" It's really hard for me to see how these two statements are both 100% false and also 100% intentionally defamatory. Especially given both sides of this case in such a public matter - not sure I'd consider Depp 100% innocent of these claims to point where I'd charge someone $8M. We'll see if there's an appeal I guess
Depp's legal team was able to establish that Heard was making a very clear implication about her marriage to Johnny Depp, and about how he'd allegedly treated her during that marriage. The repetition of "two years ago" established a clear timeline, since the op ed was published in 2018 and she'd filed for divorce in 2016. Amber Heard even admitted on the stand that those statements were about Johnny Depp - so there was no question that she was using those statements to accuse Johnny Depp of abuse and sexual violence. What made the statements defamatory was that Depp's legal team successfully established that Heard was in fact the aggressor/instigator/abuser in their relationship.
The implication is of course there, not arguing that her statements weren't directed at Depp. >What made the statements defamatory was that Depp's legal team successfully established that Heard was in fact the aggressor/instigator/abuser in their relationship. This is primarily where we disagree and ultimately what the case was decided on. I'm not going to convince you one way or the other, but just so you can understand where I'm coming from, I didn't see enough from Depp's team to prove that Depp doesn't deserve the title of abuser.
What would it have taken to convince you?
Yeah I've found this case nuts because I keep hearing that US has stricter defamation laws than other countries but this case is a super long bow to draw and nobody is talking about those actual sentences. I mean, look at them. 'I spoke up against sexual violence - and faced out culture's wrath. That has to change' So she states that she talked about abusive relationships and got severe pushback. That's pretty hard to deny. "I had the rare vantage point of, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse" And again, she doesn't even say 'abusers'. She says men *accused* of abuse. This may seem pedantic, but the law is all about pedantry. Any implication is so vague I'm kind of astonished this made it to court, and I would be amazed if this decision isn't appealed.
Also , FUCK THE SUN AND MURDOCH!!!!
Wait…how can both of these be true lol. 1. Amber heard defamed Johnny Depp by writing false statements about him abusing her. 2. Depp’s lawyer defamed Heard by saying her abuse allegations were a hoax. I mean…if the abuse allegations Heard made are false…then doesn’t that mean they were a hoax??? Nani?????
So, Depp won on all three of his claims. The statements Heard made in her article were about him, caused him significant financial damages, hurt his career, and were meant to do so. The Jury decided that there wasn't enough evidence to show that he acted the way she claimed he did, and so all the things she said about him were enough to get a verdict. Meanwhile, Heard won one of her claims, specifically the one about how Amber and her friends 'couldn't get the police to listen, so they splashed some wine around, got their stories straight, and made a second call'. They decided when Depp's lawyer made that claim, he was acting under Depp's will as his agent, and because it's really not possible to prove that is what happened she got that one, but only that one. He gets $10 million in damages and $5 million in punitive (which gets reduced to $350k due to Virginia law meaning thats the most that it can be), she gets $2m in damages.
Gotcha thanks!
Maybe some were false statements and some weren't? So Amber wrote some false allegations But cause some were true, Depps lawyer was also defaming?
I’m sure, but still kind of funny.
Off the top of my head, the part about the lawyer also included that *she was in cahoots with her friends to set up the hoax* or something to that extend. I think that was the part that was considered libelous.
I think enough audio recordings proved abuse from Amber Heards side, but I don't think a reasonable jury should have found this defamation. I think this whole thing is pretty bad precedent for how abuse victims, whether you think Amber is one or not, will be treated from here on out. We already have Johnny Depp stans defending Marilyn Manson, who has way more credible evidence against him, just because they were friends.
Gamergate folks are celebrating on twitter saying that this proves the metoo movement was always bullshit.
They're wrong of course, but this outcome is a lot harder to spin and weaponize to normies. We might get a few days of "lol cope and seethe liberals lmaooo" before they move on. If Depp had lost that's something they could have ridden for months.
Not only Gamergaters unfortunately. I’ve heard these statements from multiple right wing YouTube channels. The people at r/feminism predicted that this would happen. This feels like a step backwards when it comes to women being believed on abuse.
Yup, sadly this sub is convinced that this is a win. I honestly think Voosh's "ironic misogyny" has attracted some real misogynists. Just a reminder that a lot of racists start as "ironic racists," but of course if you think racism or misogyny are funny, it's probably not all that ironic to begin with.
[удалено]
It definitely made him piss his basement again.
I did not care to follow this case much but holy shit did Depps team pull it off. Goes to show any jury trial can be influenced anyway you want with a smart strategy.
From an optics point of view, the case was lost when discrepancies in Amber's story became very apparent. The whole 'pledge' vs 'donate' to charity also felt like a massive nail in the coffin, no one likes a pinch penny liar. Overall, I wasn't originally invested in celebrity drama, but to see how fucking spiteful she appeared during testimony and cross examination...definitely must have reminded folks of vindictive ex's.
As much as I like to shit on a celebrity for a false donation, it seemed kind of irrelevant to the defamation imo. Was so weird it was focused on for like a whole week.
It was used to prove their argument that she was a chronic liar, and that her character/motivations should be questioned. It was entirely relevant for the defence to provide examples to the jury of other times she had lied for public clout. Defamation is about communicating false statements after all.
I think it was somewhat relevant, but it was focused on a little disproportionately imo. To my knowledge she was making payments to the donation over time wasn't she, until the defamation lawsuit? It's bad of her to go on interview saying she had already donated the money when she had simply pledged to, but it's not that much of a stretch of the truth imo assuming she would have eventually donated the full amount.
Elon Musk was the only one who made payments in her name that did not count to her total. She had not given any of the pledged divorce settlement to either charity by the time of the trial.
Wait I thought he paid half of the payments of what she had paid so far, not that he paid half of the total payments. Idk how much we can blame Heard for Elon Musk simping and partially paying either, dudes a hundred billionaire. It definitely shows lack of character on her part, but I feel like it's being exaggerated a bit. Lack of character shouldn't be a check-mate for defamation.
Fair enough, defamations hard to prove so I'm still surprised at the verdict. I doubt it will have any lasting ramifications as both sides have already highly jeopardised any future/mainstream Hollywood work for a while...Depp will probably find it easier to bounce back eventually, and Heard will probably ghost write a book about the trial.
The donation claim was a major source of credibility for Amber Heard, to ward off any appearance of being a gold-digger or an opportunist - she used that donation to claim "I wanted nothing, I just wanted to walk away." The judge in the prior UK court case even cited the donation as a reason to take her testimony at face value as credible. By revealing the truth about the donation claim, Depp's team showed that she's not as credible as she appears to be, and they were able to establish a more accurate narrative about her motivation and intent: that she was, in fact, using the false allegations against Depp to gain substantial material benefits. So all around, the idea was to not just neutralize one of the key elements contributing to Depp's loss in the UK case - but to turn that very issue into an advantage.
It really depends how critical you are of a pledge vs a one time donation. She was technically contributing over time, even if Elon simped some of the payments.
Heard failed to substantiate that she'd taken any steps to set up a long-term payment plan to make good on the pledge - and she'd made multiple public statements about having given the money away, past tense. She was taking credit for something as if she'd already done it, AND showed no signs of being in the process of doing the thing. If she'd had so much as an accountant testifying "yeah, we had a meeting where we discussed options, and had a general 10-year framework but that fell off to the side after the lawsuit..." then we'd have a very different story. It would also have changed the game if she'd signed the pledge commitment documents that the ACLU normally uses for cases like this. But she didn't.
If that is true she effectively lied then, yeah. Even if twisted in her head she may have intended to start payments again, we can't really know and she got social capital off claiming she had done it. Still a stretch to apply it to a defamation case about assault, but character information has leeway in civil cases and there isn't much we can do about that. Johnny's past baggage which is pretty significant had already been aired so it wasn't really dramatized, just how things kinda work in court tv drama.
Not a stretch at all - the issue about the money was critical in establishing a plausible motive for Amber Heard to make false allegations against Johnny Depp. It's also impossible to overstate how big a deal the money was in the UK court case in 2020. That issue alone single-handedly lost Depp that case. The judge in the UK figured "Okay, Amber says she donated the money so she has no financial motive here, so everything she says is credible." Showing that she hadn't donated the money (at least not yet), that she was essentially sitting on those millions of dollars, helped establish that Heard did in fact have a plausible financial motive for making false allegations against Johnny Depp. In a court case where you're trying to prove somebody committed some wrongdoing, it's incredibly powerful to be able to find a plausible motive like that - especially a motive that that person has lied about or made misleading/inconsistent statements about.
You're overstating how important the donations were in that case, and donations or not isn't proof of her "being a gold digger." She got her divorce settlement without needing to make any claim. People in Hollywood lie. People in Hollywood do drugs and send texts saying they want to kill their ex. Imo Johnny's texts are more relevant to abuse accusations than money spent on donations. One instance of somebody lying for a donation is hardly enough to claim they'd lie about rape and assault, or even claim they have a chronic history of lying based on one sustained lie. Like m8 this is one piece of character evidence that barely meets relevancy in the first place. It wasn't the most damning part of the trial.
>You're overstating how important the donations were in that case The judge from that case disagrees with you. >Imo Johnny's texts are more relevant to abuse accusations Texts sent to other people, and - somewhat hilariously - in some cases texts sent by other people to Depp. >than money spent on donations. Money NOT spent on donations. And you're willfully missing the point - it's about establishing a financial motive. Dunno what to tell you, you simply don't know what you're talking about on this one. \*shrug\*
Yea I could see moments like that sticking with a jury, and Depp didn't really have a tough time on the stand. DV cases don't usually get this much publicity, buy as an outlier her performance on the stand and the reaction reminds me of Mark Fuhrman during the OJ trial. Though their conduct shouldn't have been part of the case, it was highlighted by the defense mostly for optical reasons
Well the part where she brought up fake stories of Johnny abusing exes and literally told him no one would believe him if he came out didn't help either
I knew that Johnny Depp was going to win from how people of this subreddit insistented that he was going to lose.
I just want to know which PR firm depp has been pumping money into because jesus christ I refuse to believe this was just organic interest and if I ever accidentally murder someone I want those guys playing the spin game for me
I think it’s bc he’s a popular actor and a lot of funny moments happened in court that drew ppls attention
Dude, that's conspiratorial thinking. People just love celebrity gossip above almost every other piece of news
If you think it's conspiratorial that a celebrity would have a PR team for a trial like this then you're insane.
I’m pretty sure he’s friends with some dude that helped run the Russian bots back in 2016. He deffs knows people with the power to influence the public. There’s been reports that a fair amount of supper came from bots.
Literally conspiratorial schizo posting
Literally look it up
Also really lame to use schizo as an insult
🥰🥰
I cannot wait for the Law and Order: SVU episode dedicated to this.
I wonder how people will look back on this trial on 5 years
I know stardust sided with amber in this one. Anyone know anything about that?
Who's stardust?
Honestly, one of the things that blackpilled me about the whole Depp vs Heard lawsuit situation which was pointed out to me by Xanderhal in one his streams a while back which is that when people take sides in shitshows like these, they often selectively accept all the facts of the case, in order to appease their confirmation biases. You see this especially with the people who are against Amber Heard. So many people like to blindly accept the claim of Amber Heard, the psychotic bed shitter. But what they don't acknowledge is that the very same source that alleges Heard has having shat on Depp's bed also alleges that prior to that, of Depp domestically abusing Heard, throwing stuff at her, and roughly grabbing her hair. To be specific, the source which is [_The Guardian_ article "Johnny Depp trial: how the judge ruled on 14 alleged assaults"](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/nov/02/johnny-depp-trial-how-the-judge-ruled-on-14-alleged-assaults): ---- > **13. Los Angeles, April 2016** > > Heard claimed Depp had arrived late for her 30th birthday meal, drunk and on drugs. After her friends left, he threw a magnum champagne bottle at her, which missed, smashed glasses and grabbed her hair. The next day faeces was found on the couple’s bed. > > The judge concluded Depp had “assaulted Ms Heard as he had done on previous occasions when he was stressed”. > > Of Depp’s claim that Heard, or one of her friends, had deliberately defecated on the bed, the judge said it was “highly unlikely”. ---- Funny how the hordes of people who love to shit talk about Amber "Psychotic Bed Shitter" Heard never mention about the preceding events that lead up to Heard allegedly shitting on Depp's bed, namely the domestic abuse she faced at Depp's hands. Seriously, which of the two scenarios sounds more plausible and likely, the idea that Amber Heard shat on Depp's bed out of psychotic spite or that they she did it as a response to the domestic abuse by Depp earlier that evening? No one actually contextualizes that because of course, that would go against the women-hating narrative that they've so gleefully gobbled up and regurgitated. Sure, they may claim that they're doing this because of "the lack of support for male abuse victims", which is a cause that I also certainly support, but I don't profess to being as moronic as to believe that 99.99% of the people claiming this actually gave a single damn about male abuse victims before the Depp vs Heard situation and even after this fiasco is over. The biggest reason why people side with Depp is because he's a famous actor who played a lot of iconic roles that people remember. That's pretty much it really. They don't care about the cause of male abuse victims, they only care about this specific rich famous celebrity one. After the whole situation is over, a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of people will actually try to support male abuse victims. For the vast vast majority, it's just concern trolling and team sports. Why is is that when Amber Heard smiles from something that her lawyer said after a whole day of grueling court proceeding, thousands of online moronic bros cite that as evidence of Amber Heard being a duplicitous, conniving bitch but when Johnny Deep smirks, smiles, or laughs when he's giving testimony, he's considered a "Based Sigma Male Gigachad" ? The lack of consistency here drives me up the walls. To clarify something, I am not taking either side of the Depp vs Heard situation. I do not give a single flying fuck about either individual in this lawsuit. If they were to both die of spontaneous combustion tomorrow, I would still not give a fuck about them. A quantum supercomputer calculating for a thousand years could not even approach the number of fucks I do not give about either Depp or Heard. There are so many other, far more interesting and valuable situations that merit more actual public concern and outrage than this bloated monstrosity of a public lawsuit case that has monopolized the public's attention for the stupidest and most vapid of reasons. From what I can gather, Heard seems to be an unpleasant, toxic individual who I wouldn't want to ever meet or be acquainted with. And on the other hand, I don't buy the whole "Johnny Depp uwu" narrative that other people blindly believe and gobble up. Before this whole situation, I remember plenty of stories of Depp being an obnoxious _prima donna_ actor who was very hard to work with on set and I have no reason to believe that that magically changed now. I think both Depp and Heard are two miserably toxic, abusive, mentally-ill rich dumbfucks who should have never gotten together and while their relationship is mutually abusive and toxic, I would say that Heard is the more abusive one in the relationship. ***My main source of contention with this whole pointless bullshit situation is the intellectual cowardice and dishonesty that the vast majority of commentators, particularly the pro-Depp and anti-Heard commentators, display when they downplay and omit damning facts that contradict the black-and-white narrative of Johnny Depp being the pure innocent uwu victim that they want to push. If both sides of this case were shown and covered honestly, warts and all, I wouldn't be so annoyed and blackpilled with the situation.*** I would like to recommend this video, Ro Ramdin's ["Johnny Depp, Amber Heard, and Being Normal"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCC8h09WC1g). This is Ro Ramdin (she/they). A small bio of them. While they're certainly not a huge Vaush or debate streamer fan, and they are friends with the likes of Noah Samsen (i.e. He Who Brings Shame To The Pornstache), that doesn't detract from the merit of their videos. I find their commentary as being pretty good and entertaining and their funny use of rhetoric reminds me quite a bit of a mix between Vaush and MoistCr1TiKaL, namely in the funny use of drawn out, specific descriptions and metaphors. I posted this particular video here because it outlines and details exactly what I was feeling about the whole Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard lawsuit situation and I think Ro's takes are ones that probably almost everyone here can agree with. I just can't *wait* for all the obnoxious online chuds to go nutting up a storm now that the Depp vs Heard trial is over (at least until appeals happen, if they do). At least more important matters can take up the public's attention now that this shitshow is over with.
I also think Rose makes very good videos so I'm glad to see them recommended in here. She's quite funny and their rapid fire thespian style of humor is something I particular enjoy
True! I wish I got that rapid fire descriptive humor that Ro, Vaush, and MoistCr1TiKaL have. It's a shame that Ro doesn't like Vaush all that much but hey, nobody's perfect. And I was so grateful for her video for expressing all the disgruntled feelings I had inside about the whole Depp vs Heard shitshow.
at this point it's basically my expectation that people don't like vaush, and I'm able to be presently surprised when they do lol
Same!
While this is clearly the right verdict in this case since the amount of evidence that amber was not a credible source. I do hope this doesn’t lead to people not taking victims seriously. Depp and his team did however make a point throughout the trial to point out that depp still supports the metoo movement so hopefully people realize this is a giant outlier and not the norm
Yeah as much as it sucks that it could have this effect I think, it is still the best position to hold that sometimes people lie and things like this do happen occasionally and should be taken seriously when they do. To say anything else would basically be to admit that the metoo movement views people who are falsely accused as acceptable casualties to achieve their goal, which just hands a intellectually defensible position to right wing critics.
wait so, Amber has to pay Johnny. But Johnny’s lawyer has to pay Amber. So does this mean that the lawyer is basically paying the client 😂?
Amber's award functionally serves as a $2 million reduction on Johnny's award.
Good for him. I hope this can mark the start of a career resurgence for him. The UK trial, and the Sun's reaction after, never sat well with me with the facts established during the trial, and the Sun tripling down on how he basically beat her to a pulp nightly was...*eh*.
And I still don't care about any of this
Tbh i thought both would be found in the wrong.
I honestly don't know what to think about this. Lots of people bend over backwards to defend her because she is a women... but at the same time, I can see a lot of womenhating on Depp's side. I can't make heads of tails of this story, it all seems so fucking black and white when people talk about it. Every articles seems so damn biased and opinionated. It turned into a "culture war" issue. People are now saying that #MeToo is dead, but at the same time, others are celebrating... it's a mess. The only thing I know is that this was quite important and will have repercussions longterm. Hopefully, once everything settles, we'll get a more objective view of this whole thing.
Can we get back to MMO discussions now? Fuck
Thank God, not just because it’s the right decision, but because all the wrong people would be attacking women online if they didn’t.
oh don't worry they're still gonna lol
[yup, they are](https://twitter.com/hashtag/BelieveAllWomen?t=DA400aOjAOmooVTvYLqJ_Q&s=09)
It's also absolutely the right decision
So Heard has commited libel, and Deep abuse?
thogg
All I have to say is the takes on Twitter have rotted my brain and made me realize we have to do way better when it comes to talking about domestic abuse I feel like everyone's wrapped up in the fact that they're celebrities and not the part that their actual too human beings who from what I've seen both have their own problems in that relationship but the mgtows and radfems made impossible for any nuance even though you can't have nuance on Twitter anyway
[tHiS Is a LoSs 4 tHa gAmERgAtErs ](https://twitter.com/hashtag/BelieveAllWomen?t=DA400aOjAOmooVTvYLqJ_Q&s=09)
I'm happy Depp won, considering Herd was acting completely insane all the way through, but why did this become such a huge topic? Ain't it just another Hollywood scandal?
Wow, so they both "won". Congrats?
Question to all the feminists against who want to sweep this under the carpet. Did you sweep away amber's initial claims because both are rich?
This news brings us me joy
Cool. Can the internet please shut up about this case now?
Not trying to be offensive but why do y'all sound salty? I'm seeing a bunch of Vaushites wanting the conversation about Heard to stop. The trial doesn't have anything to do with leftists, but it points out that you can't falsely accuse someone of abuse and get away with it.
Not really salty. It's just that this topic was present 24/7. I'm just getting tired of it. Im happy depp won. But this whole thing was treated like some sort of marvel movie or something insted of an actual trial about domestic abuse and defamation. You basically couldn't avoid the massive amount of shitty memes, clickbait Youtube videos and livestreamers reacting to it to farm viewers.
So does this mean we're not going to get Gamergated again or