Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp: Score Keeping and Color

Post Reply New Topic

I have personally been on the receiving end of this, specifically to make me look bad.
I am not saying this did or didn't happen here, however.

Interestingly, the "leaked" video of Mr Depp banging the cupboards and pouring the "mega pint" of wine was supposedly nothing to do with Ms Heard - He was acting in that manner as a result of having just found out that he had lost $650 million due to some form of financial mismanagement by his former business managers, along with another $100 million in income tax not having been paid by them on his behalf over the previous 17 years.

Yes, having observed all those who care about seeing and evaluating facts\evidence being labelled "far right" by a person on the spectrum on this site, it certainly opens ones eyes...

I wonder if it's a case of people on the spectrum being forced to choose between:
"fitting in" - where they have headed down a path of wishing to "fit in" so as to not attract unwanted attention - doing what they believe society expects people to do\act\think, until it becomes second nature.
and
"embracing their difference" where they are remaining true to themselves and not caring if what they say\do\act isn't what is considered "normal" by society.

Awful day for free speech in the US. Can scarcely believe we have reached the stage where English libel law is less strict than that in the land of the free. Victims of abuse need to be able to say that they are victims of abuse without fear that they will be forced to pay millions to their abusers.

Let’s hope this gets overturned on appeal. It seems likely that the jury have been influenced by the misogynistic vitriol thrown at Hurd online. If the judgement stands then Americans will have effectively lost their free speech rights.

Her statements were determined to be defamatory (which requires them to be false)
And,
2 of the statements which she claimed as being defamatory towards herself involved calling her accusations against Mr Depp a hoax:
* "Amber Heard and her friends in the media use fake sexual violence allegations as both a sword and shield, depending on their needs. They have selected some of her sexual violence hoax 'facts' as the sword, inflicting them on the public and Mr. Depp."
* "We've reached the beginning of the end of Ms Heard's abuse hoax against Johnny Depp"
Were found to not be defamatory (for at least one of the following reasons: The person who made the statement wasn't working on behalf of Mr Depp, the statement wasn't about Ms Heard, the statement wasn't seen by anyone besides Ms Heard, the statement wasn't false, the statement wasn't made with actual malice)

The statement which was found to be defamatory was solely related to Ms Heard and friends staging a scene and calling police a second time after the first call to, and visit by, the police did not go as they supposedly wished making no reference to Mr Depp or his supposed actions (likely found defamaory due to the lack of a second call to police making the statement untrue).

Looking at the 2 statements which she claimed were defamatory, but which the jury found were not, and the factors required for defamation to be found to have occurred:
* The statements both actually name Ms Heard, so this wasn't the reason they were not found to be defamatory (They were about her).
*The statements were published in a newspaper, so this wasn't the reason they were not found to be defamatory (They were seen by more than just her).

This leaves us with:
They were made by the same person who made the statement which was found to be defamatory, so this was unlikely to have been the reason they were not found to be defamatory.

The remaining 2 reasons they may not have been found to be defamatory is that the jury found that they were either:
True
or
They were not made\published with "actual malice".

Of these final 3 reasons (who made them, were they true, were they malicious), I would guess that the statements being found to be true is the most likely (but not neccesarily sole) reason they were not found to be defamatory.

The jurors have no access to outside sources of the courtroom.

The vast majority consensus based on the evidence is that Heard was blatantly lying. The majority consensus is also that Heard's lying did harm to victims of abuse. Freedom of speech doesn't include being free to commit perjury without consequences.

Indeed.

Spot on. Poster above has fallen into the same trap loads of people do when they think of free speech as something that they gave defined literally in their own heads, rather than what it actually means legally.

Also "land of the free" stuff by that same poster is an actual nonsense. Not supported if you examine the laws and social constraints that exist in the US and objectively compare those to other nations.

That's the theory (and ideal situation)... This jury (like most) wasn't sequestered, though, and so returned home each day after the trial and through deliberations (weekends would have been hard enough - The week where the court was in recess while the judge was at a conference must have been very difficult), so as with most juries the possibility that a member(s) may have seen outside information (wittingly or unwittingly) is present.

Ironic the poster is a moderator on here

I'd agree: She had the right to free speech, and made use of it.

What is being misrepresented as a curb on "free speech" is simply a desire for freedom from lawful consequences: In this case, a person was publicly accused of commiting a crime and the jury determined this accusation was likley untrue.

What many people haven't noticed\commented on: Ms Heard was claiming she had a right to say what she said about Mr Depp through her right to "free speech", whilst at the same time she was countersueing Mr Depp over what he (through an agent) had said about her - Either "free speech" goes both ways (undermining her counterclaims), or it goes neither way.

You mean that a person who has the power to silence\curb another's speech is complaining about\protesting against restrictions on people having free speech

Say it isn't so...

Are you suggesting logical thinking should be engaged?
That is a rather radical idea.
I will need some time to think about that.
<satire> <facetiousness> <disingenuousness> <sarcasm>
I will let each individual choose which they prefer.

I might as well get a post in before this thread is locked.
Ironic, wouldn't you say?

I've said it before, to give even an illusion of neutrality mods need to log out and post opinions as a regular user account instead of flexing on us as mods. I ask, is your opinion the official position of wrongplanet.net? (And everything that entails including being the authorized spokesperson by the site's owner.)