Johnny Depp's Defamation Suit

[Endus]

Yes you are right because the Late Night host is in no way aware of that fact and situation they weren't personally involved, and as such under the guise of Comedy or Criticism it's protected.

Amber was a party in the events she described without mentioning Johnny Depp in the Op-Ed, there for her opinion because of perspective as a party in that would or my understanding makes that protected. Obviously I can be wrong but that is how I understand that.

You are so bafflingly wrong that I don't even understand how you could ever have gotten there. You're claiming defamation cannot exist, which is obviously falsfalse on its face.

Again; "opinion" is not a legal shield against defamation claims. Once you move past personal preferences like "I have avocado" or "Star Wars is dumb" and make claims about any actual person and any thing(s) that person said or did in actuality, you're no problem longer just expressing opinion, and if you don't have good reasons for thinking that, potentially being defamatory.

Example that I gave already such as Autobiographical Movies or Books.

Absolutely can and do get sued for defamation if the authors are reckless about accusations, all the time. This is literally the definition of libel.

[Nastard]

This thread, and the unhinged lunatic within, is a better argument for the necessity of mental evaluation for firearm possession than anything in the 3,000-page gun control thread.

[Doctor Amadeus]

You are so bafflingly wrong that I don't even understand how you could ever have gotten there. You're claiming defamation cannot exist, which is obviously falsfalse on its face.

Again; "opinion" is not a legal shield against defamation claims. Once you move past personal preferences like "I have avocado" or "Star Wars is dumb" and make claims about any actual person and any thing(s) that person said or did in actuality, you're no problem longer just expressing opinion, and if you don't have good reasons for thinking that, potentially being defamatory.



Absolutely can and do get sued for defamation if the authors are reckless about accusations, all the time. This is literally the definition of libel.

People can sue for whatever they want hell someone is suing Mariah Carrey for "All I want for Christmas" after it was release near 35 Years ago, doesn't mean it's going to go anywhere.


And No I won't ask you to post Case Logs for decisions, but No opinions are completely free from defamation, how they are presented might be. And Op-Ed is an opinion and in this case a perspective shared by an author who was involved.

I could be wrong, but if I am the only exception I can imagine reasonably would be if the statement falls with what you said to the degree that the statement made eludes to a crime.


The problem I find with that though is unless it has been demonstrated to be false like I said in this case in the eyes of the law, then it shouldn't be assumed an opinion even from Ambers perspective should be taken by anyone as an indictment of something true.

Johnny was not harmed at least I don't see him harmed especially by the statements, again I am fine with being wrong and the jury obviously not agreeing.

Going back to the problem, is that Disney for example is a Media Company, that could have decided not to hire Johnny Depp for a lot of reason not just the Op-Ed. It would be pretty stupid for Disney to fire Depp over unsubstantiated Claims.

Depp made them Billions. If they decided not to hire him it was a business decision.

- - - Updated - - -

This thread, and the unhinged lunatic within, is a better argument for the necessity of mental evaluation for firearm possession than anything in the 3,000-page gun control thread.

That lunatic being the one coming in here making dipshit statements over simple disagreements as being a threat of a mass shooting. You really shouldn't be judging anyone's mentality. Oh and it's too late I am armed to the teeth and Own a AR-15

[Nastard]

Oh and it's too late I am armed to the teeth and Own a AR-15

My point exactly. The thought of seeing your rambling incoherent thought process in action in this thread and knowing you have a firearm should make everyone rethink our approach.

[Doctor Amadeus]

My point exactly. The thought of seeing your rambling incoherent thought process in action in this thread and knowing you have a firearm should make everyone rethink our approach.

Well it would certainly make you rethink your approach since you seem to pop off about anything, and make stupid statements our context and for no legitimate reason. You are already an example for why we need guns and we also need to ignore people like you claiming that law abiding citizens owning them is any kind of problem.

[Nastard]

Well it would certainly make you rethink your approach since you seem to pop off about anything

41,000+ posts and every single one of them angry and belligerent, yet hypocritically talks about others "popping off about anything." All in a thread where you've completely revealed how little you know about libel, defamation, and the justice system in general. Though I do appreciate the sentiment that you need ammunition to deal with me, because when it comes to wit, you're hopelessly unarmed.

[Jotaux]

Really? I'm accused of not watching every detail of this trial so tell me.

Where was the Police report and Officers called as witnesses for anybody?

How about statements from the District Attorney or anybody?

Doctors who treated anybody?

I'll save you time, There isn't any, because this circus wasn't about any truth finding. It was a parade of hearsay and influence.

There was all those things in the trial except the district attorney, I doubt this hit his desk considering the officers didn't find any evidence Depp abused Heard. This is why everyone discounts your opinion, you didn't watch the trial and have no clue.

[Doctor Amadeus]

41,000+ posts and every single one of them angry and belligerent, yet hypocritically talks about others "popping off about anything." All in a thread where you've completely revealed how little you know about libel, defamation, and the justice system in general. Though I do appreciate the sentiment that you need ammunition to deal with me, because when it comes to wit, you're hopelessly unarmed.

LOL 41.000 Post every statement and comment is my own. I am sure you find any opinion you disagree with belligerent but hell you came storming in here with your comment about how it's tied to mass shootings or is fodder for a conversation about a Gun Control.

Yes Please keep fucking embarrassing yourself. You're the one that assumed anyone needs ammunition to deal with you.

[Jotaux]

Oh and it's too late I am armed to the teeth and Own a AR-15

This is the most troubling thing I have read on these forums.

[Doctor Amadeus]

There was all those things in the trial except the district attorney, I doubt this hit his desk considering the officers didn't find any evidence Depp abused Heard. This is why everyone discounts your opinion, you didn't watch the trial and have no clue.

I don't really give a shit what you think everyone agrees with you and I am the only one saying what I am saying and pointing out the truth. Nothing in the trial established defamation. The trial wasn't about defamation or money apparently it was about revenge.

[Jotaux]

I don't really give a shit what you think everyone agrees with you and I am the only one saying what I am saying and pointing out the truth. Nothing in the trial established defamation. The trial wasn't about defamation or money apparently it was about revenge.

You literally said none of this was in the trial when it clearly was. You aren't pointing out the truth at all.

[Doctor Amadeus]

This is the most troubling thing I have read on these forums.

I am sure it is. And like the other brain trust that says more about you and your pedantic bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -

You literally said none of this was in the trial when it clearly was. You aren't pointing out the truth at all.

No I didn't you can't read, I asked if it was, and I also asked how it established Ambers Guilt which it didn't there for making that an irrelevant element to a case about defamation.

[Endus]

, but No opinions are completely free from defamation, how they are presented might be. And Op-Ed is an opinion and in this case a perspective shared by an author who was involved.

Again, no. This is completely wrongheaded and demonstrates only that you have no idea what defamation even is. "Opinion" is not in any way a shield, and if it were, defamation as a concept could not exist.

The existence of defamation as a concept proves your position on this false. You don't get to just make shit up about someone and say "well, that's just my opinion, man" and get a legal pass. Where the fuckdid you ever get the idea otherwise?

- - - Updated - - -

No I didn't you can't read, I asked if it was, and I also asked how it established Ambers Guilt which it didn't there for making that an irrelevant element to a case about defamation.

Civil suits don't deal with "guilt" at all, to begin with. You really don't understand even the most basic elements of common law.

[Veggie50]

Amadeus’ argument consists entirely of “na-ah”.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Again, no. This is completely wrongheaded and demonstrates only that you have no idea what defamation even is. "Opinion" is not in any way a shield, and if it were, defamation as a concept could not exist.

The existence of defamation as a concept proves your position on this false. You don't get to just make shit up about someone and say "well, that's just my opinion, man" and get a legal pass. Where the fuckdid you ever get the idea otherwise?

- - - Updated - - -


Civil suits don't deal with "guilt" at all, to begin with. You really don't understand even the most basic elements of common law.

Your rights end where my nose begins. Meaning opinion is fine saying what you want is fine provided it doesn’t come at someone else’s expense.

A comedian can’t be sued for saying things that are their opinion. A critic can’t be sued because of an opinion alone either.

And a personal can’t be sued for giving an account from their own perspective ideally.

But nothing is absolute. Defamation is for those times there are exceptions meaning the statement made was slander statements made known to be false or caused harm from something not proven to be true.

Which is why it is civil.

This was not a defamation case this was a criminal trial back doored as a civil case about defamation. Otherwise JD would have lost in my opinion.

Which is why I called this trial what I did.

Anyways I’m fine with arguing this but my intentions were never to spam which is what I’m close to now.

I’ve clearly explained my opinion now this trial is done.

If you truly believe this was Justice here there’s nothing more I can argue to convince you otherwise.

[Edge-]

This was not a defamation case this was a criminal trial back doored as a civil case about defamation. Otherwise JD would have lost in my opinion.

Have you ever considered...that you're wrong? Because it sure seems like you're wrong given that there's not a single source to back this position up beyond...well, you.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Have you ever considered...that you're wrong? Because it sure seems like you're wrong given that there's not a single source to back this position up beyond...well, you.

You mean have I copied and pasted my opinion from regurgitated garbage validated mostly out of context by people like you, who use them to have disingenuous arguments that agree with everyone else. Eh NO!

I am wrong if there is a prudent argument that proves I am wrong. I always admit when I am wrong, and have done so in this thread, but no I am not going to agree just to along with people I like, I leave that BS up to people like you.

[Endus]

Your rights end where my nose begins. Meaning opinion is fine saying what you want is fine provided it doesn’t come at someone else’s expense.

And that's what defamation is.

Which you've been refusing to acknowledge for this entire thread, and insisting that the op-ed Heard wrote couldn't qualify as such. Even though it clearly came at Depp's expense. As demonstrated in the trial.

A comedian can’t be sued for saying things that are their opinion. A critic can’t be sued because of an opinion alone either.

And a personal can’t be sued for giving an account from their own perspective ideally.

If they're defamatory?

100% they can be sued, and they won't have a defense if it were framed as anything but an obvious joke (in the case of the comedian). This isn't even theory; these lawsuits happen.

But nothing is absolute. Defamation is for those times there are exceptions meaning the statement made was slander statements made known to be false or caused harm from something not proven to be true.

Or with reckless disregard for the truth.

And in this case, Heard's accusations met that standard, and caused such harm, ergo the ruling against her accordingly. No matter how much you don't want to admit it.

This was not a defamation case this was a criminal trial back doored as a civil case about defamation. Otherwise JD would have lost in my opinion.

This is just a lie. You're lying. It was a defamation case, nothing more, and your pretensions otherwise are intentional bad faith.

[Orange Joe]

Well it would certainly make you rethink your approach since you seem to pop off about anything, and make stupid statements our context and for no legitimate reason. You are already an example for why we need guns and we also need to ignore people like you claiming that law abiding citizens owning them is any kind of problem.

The irony of this statement coming from who it is.....

[Traveler Voltin]

Are they still going at it?
Stop ignoring facts