Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Glad the billionaire corpse-fuck fantasist who defends child rapists got his justice.
Johnny Depp Libel Case
- Thread starter savoloysam
- Start date
Dystopiary
putting up a hook to hang my hopes upon
Depp and Marilyn Manson are very close friends. Manson is suing Evan Rachel Wood for "defamation and distress."
He must have been pleased to hear the result of this trial.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
...if the massive ego of a billionaire feels threatened.
Yeah, twitter must be crapping themselves.
I wasn't familiar with this but looks like more of the same.
'In 2016, Wood told a Rolling Stone reporter she had been raped twice years ago, once by a "significant other".[81][82] In February 2018, she testified before the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations in support of the Sexual Assault Survivors' Bill of Rights Act.[83]
In April 2019, she testified before the California Senate to help pass the Phoenix Act, which extended the statute of limitations in domestic-violence cases from three to five years and requires police to have additional training.[84] In her testimony, Wood said the abuse she experienced by Marilyn Manson had been physical, sexual and emotional,[85] including antisemitism,[86][87][88] and that she had subsequently been diagnosed with complex post-traumatic stress disorder.[89][90]
In February 2021, Wood named Manson as her alleged abuser on Instagram,[91] where four other women made similar allegations against him.[92] The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said they were investigating Manson due to allegations of domestic violence.[93] To date, sixteen people have made accusations against Manson, and four have sued for sexual assault.[94]'
Evan Rachel Wood - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
someone called me a republican cunt today! Even though its correct (the republican bit), im going to sue them for $15 million.. my accountant reckons its easy money.
The cult of celebrity is completely insane - all the focus is about how tough slack arsed celebs have it. What a super sick joke.
The cult of celebrity is completely insane - all the focus is about how tough slack arsed celebs have it. What a super sick joke.
David Clapson
Well-Known Member
I've not read this thread, but in a nutshell what's the legal argument that the article was defamatory? I can't see anything defamatory in it. It could be inferred from it that Depp was accused of abuse, but not that he was guilty of it. So where's the logic?
Cloo
Approved by toads
As this article concludes, the verdict says to abused women:
'We can ruin HER, they are telling us. Just imagine how bad it will be for YOU.'
newsletterwithecm.substack.com
'We can ruin HER, they are telling us. Just imagine how bad it will be for YOU.'
It's the Dehumanization, Bitches
Amber Heard, Misogyny, and the End of Another American Myth
newsletterwithecm.substack.com
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
The perceived wisdom is that it is much easier to win a defamation case in the UK than in the US, where the enshrinement of free speech in the first amendment of the constitution is sacrosanct. So what happened in this case to reverse the expected result?
Mark Stephens, an international media lawyer, said the fact that the US case was heard before a jury while the UK trial was heard before a judge was significant.
“Because the US trial was before a jury, it allowed Depp’s lawyers to focus on Heard,” a well-worn tactic of defendants in domestic abuse cases but one that was dismissed by the judge in the UK, Stephens said.
“They deny that they [their client] did anything, they deny they’re the real perpetrator, and they attack the credibility of the individual calling out the abuse, and then reverse the rolls of the victim and the offender.”
Heard’s team also made tactical mistakes and were outdone by a more experienced set of lawyers, Stephens added. “Heard’s team were not predominantly trained libel lawyers and they were outgunned at every corner. They were up against a very strong team for Depp,” he said.
According to the US academic who coined the term Darvo and has studied the tactics used by alleged sexual predators, social media was used to undermine Heard’s case and bolster Depp’s.
Jennifer Freyd, a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Oregon, said the traducing of Heard’s reputation online was “overwhelming”.
“Darvo refers to a reaction [that alleged] perpetrators of wrongdoing, particularly sexual offenders, may display in response to being held accountable for their behaviour,” she said.
“This occurs, for instance, when an actually guilty perpetrator assumes the role of ‘falsely accused’ and attacks the accuser’s credibility and blames the accuser of being the perpetrator of a false accusation.
“What we have witnessed in the US over this case has been an overwhelming case for Depp on social media. It is like an anti-Heard campaign and there has been a lot of Darvo.”
On TikTok, the hashtag #justiceforjohnnydepp received 19bn views. Jurors were instructed not to read about the case online but they were not sequestered and they were allowed to keep their phones.
www.theguardian.com
Mark Stephens, an international media lawyer, said the fact that the US case was heard before a jury while the UK trial was heard before a judge was significant.
“Because the US trial was before a jury, it allowed Depp’s lawyers to focus on Heard,” a well-worn tactic of defendants in domestic abuse cases but one that was dismissed by the judge in the UK, Stephens said.
“They deny that they [their client] did anything, they deny they’re the real perpetrator, and they attack the credibility of the individual calling out the abuse, and then reverse the rolls of the victim and the offender.”
Heard’s team also made tactical mistakes and were outdone by a more experienced set of lawyers, Stephens added. “Heard’s team were not predominantly trained libel lawyers and they were outgunned at every corner. They were up against a very strong team for Depp,” he said.
According to the US academic who coined the term Darvo and has studied the tactics used by alleged sexual predators, social media was used to undermine Heard’s case and bolster Depp’s.
Jennifer Freyd, a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Oregon, said the traducing of Heard’s reputation online was “overwhelming”.
“Darvo refers to a reaction [that alleged] perpetrators of wrongdoing, particularly sexual offenders, may display in response to being held accountable for their behaviour,” she said.
“This occurs, for instance, when an actually guilty perpetrator assumes the role of ‘falsely accused’ and attacks the accuser’s credibility and blames the accuser of being the perpetrator of a false accusation.
“What we have witnessed in the US over this case has been an overwhelming case for Depp on social media. It is like an anti-Heard campaign and there has been a lot of Darvo.”
On TikTok, the hashtag #justiceforjohnnydepp received 19bn views. Jurors were instructed not to read about the case online but they were not sequestered and they were allowed to keep their phones.
Why did the Depp-Heard libel outcomes differ in the US and UK?
Analysis: Specialist lawyers, a jury trial, social media and targeting Heard all helped Depp win in Virginia
Hollis
bloody furious
Jeff- there was more below the insert..
Persephone Bridgman Baker, a partner at libel specialists Carter-Ruck, said that ultimately the jury believed Depp. “There seems no more obvious explanation than that the jury simply believed Depp’s evidence in the US proceedings, or, if you accept that a Darvo strategy was employed, that the jury accepted it.
“There was more evidence in the US proceedings about Heard’s credibility, on which the judge in the UK placed little importance: that is likely to have been a deliberate strategic decision by Depp’s team. While the judge in the UK proceedings decided Heard was a credible witness, that additional evidence may have swung a jury,” she said.
Will the US result have consequences for other women who wish to make claims of harassment or abuse against high-profile individuals, anywhere in the world? Freyd said it will. “Others who wish to make claims will see what has happened in this case, and see what has happened to Heard, and think twice. Many will be afraid to talk,” she said.
Persephone Bridgman Baker, a partner at libel specialists Carter-Ruck, said that ultimately the jury believed Depp. “There seems no more obvious explanation than that the jury simply believed Depp’s evidence in the US proceedings, or, if you accept that a Darvo strategy was employed, that the jury accepted it.
“There was more evidence in the US proceedings about Heard’s credibility, on which the judge in the UK placed little importance: that is likely to have been a deliberate strategic decision by Depp’s team. While the judge in the UK proceedings decided Heard was a credible witness, that additional evidence may have swung a jury,” she said.
Will the US result have consequences for other women who wish to make claims of harassment or abuse against high-profile individuals, anywhere in the world? Freyd said it will. “Others who wish to make claims will see what has happened in this case, and see what has happened to Heard, and think twice. Many will be afraid to talk,” she said.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
I listened to a podcast discussing the case saying that one of the ways Depps lawyers had made his case more believable is that they'd got her to admit lying about donating money to charity, saying that she had claimed to donate money to DV charities whereas in reality she had only 'pledged' to do so and not done it yet. If this is true it makes her look pretty bad and I wondered whether this is what happened? I don't really want to watch any of the videos and memes etc.
I think no matter what the result was it was always going to have a bad effect on whether people who had experienced domestic violence wanted to speak up. Depp stans seem to be the worst but even without them it was turned into a horrible social media spectacle and couldn't have been good for both of them, and was definitely not what 'justice' needed
I think no matter what the result was it was always going to have a bad effect on whether people who had experienced domestic violence wanted to speak up. Depp stans seem to be the worst but even without them it was turned into a horrible social media spectacle and couldn't have been good for both of them, and was definitely not what 'justice' needed
Thora
Differently Ethical
She's not very likeable. She's probably not a very nice person and not someone you'd want to be friends with. But regardless of whether she is nice or not, donating money etc has no impact on whether Depp was abusive.I listened to a podcast discussing the case saying that one of the ways Depps lawyers had made his case more believable is that they'd got her to admit lying about donating money to charity, saying that she had claimed to donate money to DV charities whereas in reality she had only 'pledged' to do so and not done it yet. If this is true it makes her look pretty bad and I wondered whether this is what happened? I don't really want to watch any of the videos and memes etc.
I think no matter what the result was it was always going to have a bad effect on whether people who had experienced domestic violence wanted to speak up. Depp stans seem to be the worst but even without them it was turned into a horrible social media spectacle and couldn't have been good for both of them, and was definitely not what 'justice' needed
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
The verdict where they were both found guilty just shows how totally nonsensical it was tbh. It's definitely going to deter people from speaking up, what a shitshow
I haven’t been following it. Do you think the final verdict was unjust?
D'wards
IT'S YOUR DECISION DANIEL
Its true! Although she did get Elon Musk to donate some amount of it.
This was omitted from the UK trial
Amber Heard, Elon Musk, and a Multimillion-Dollar Mystery
Testimony in the Depp v. Heard defamation trial — and emails uncovered by Rolling Stone — reveal cozy ties between the stars and the charity
www.rollingstone.com
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
I agree! It's not what the case was about, it's just that lying about donating money was one of the ways in which Depp discredited her testimony, I just wondered if there was any truth to the claims tbh.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Yeah I do, I don't see how this could have been a fair trial for either of them with all the social media frenzy. It should never have been on TV.
Edited: maybe not
Last edited:
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
I wasn’t aware of that, and it is mad.
Was more interested in whether you thought the verdict was wrong rather than arrived at unsoundly, though.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Lol fucking hellIts true! Although she did get Elon Musk to donate some amount of it.
This was omitted from the UK trial
Amber Heard, Elon Musk, and a Multimillion-Dollar Mystery
Testimony in the Depp v. Heard defamation trial — and emails uncovered by Rolling Stone — reveal cozy ties between the stars and the charity
I do think Depp is an abusive piece of shit and the wider implications of it do worry me especially in the current climate. But jeez there is so much corruption and dirty money in the American system, not specifically related to this trial but it showcases a lot of it
Thora
Differently Ethical
Probably true. I think this is the difference in outcomes between a jury trial and the judge only. The judge wasn't interested in whether Heard is nice or what Tiktok was saying about her, it was just about whether Depp was abusive.
The American trial was all about whether Heard was a 'good' victim (she isn't).
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
I don't know tbh because I wasnt there and didn't follow it obsessively. The wider implications this is gonna have on speaking up about abuse are fucking horrendous though. And probably would have been even if Heard had won albeit slightly less so
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
It's definitely going to deter people from speaking up, what a shitshow
I doubt it will stop people from speaking up.
It might encourage abused men to press charges.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Yeah the UK trial wasnt interested in what else the parties had lied about. Just whether Depp was abusive (and he was suing the Sun rather than Heard at that point so her giving money to charity etc probably didn't come into it)
The American trial seemed to be about whether they had suffered damage to the reputation irrespective of the truth of the claims (hence why they found that Depps lawyers had committed libel).
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
I think the thought of being savaged on tiktok etc is definitely going to deter a lot of people
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
This was just a passive impression I picked up, but from the things Depp’s exes had said it seemed like he was reacting under some duress. But then I don’t even know the detail aside from that it didn’t seem like he was a naturally abusive person.
And of course people sometimes change.
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
Social media loves attacking people.
If you are gonna press charges, just stay off of social media.
Thora
Differently Ethical
Plenty of men are already using threats of defamation charges against their victims. The very few victims who actually speak up in the first place.
But yeah, poor men definitely.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Not always that simple though?
Similar threads
