Johnny Depp's Defamation Suit

[Ihavewaffles]

lol it's in the trial now

[Rennadrel]

So the Vox article (if you want to call it that) that was published yesterday was some pretty incendiary garbage full of patently false claims against people. Are American right wing media outlets trying to use it for their own gain? Undoubtedly.

Their claims that the narrative on social media in favor of Depp has been shaped by bots, citing an article from when the UK trial was going on a year ago. They actually make that claim twice using different articles, one from 2020 and one from 2021. They also have the audacity to cite one of their own ideologically charged articles claiming that the alt-right uses sexism and other kinds of bigotry to recruit men into their ideology.

Most of the people I see tweeting about this trial are not what I'd ever even consider right wing, most of them are either libertarians and centrists, leftists or progressives. The progressives are having literal meltdowns because so much doubt has been put into the claims made by Amber Heard because she's looking like a huge hypocrite. Everyone else seems to understand that there's way more nuance to the trial and that being hyperbolic does no one any good.

[Spectral]

So the Vox article (if you want to call it that) that was published yesterday was some pretty incendiary garbage full of patently false claims against people. Are American right wing media outlets trying to use it for their own gain? Undoubtedly.

Their claims that the narrative on social media in favor of Depp has been shaped by bots, citing an article from when the UK trial was going on a year ago. They actually make that claim twice using different articles, one from 2020 and one from 2021. They also have the audacity to cite one of their own ideologically charged articles claiming that the alt-right uses sexism and other kinds of bigotry to recruit men into their ideology.

Link for anyone curious. The whole thing reads like a parody of "everything I don't like is Russian bots" journalism.

To put it mildly, this surreal explosion of internet culture vilification of Heard feels dispiriting and troubling. What made so many millions of people feel so justified in treating such a personal, toxic relationship like popcorn fodder? At what point before the bot armies and men’s rights activists poisoned the well of discourse around this trial could a reasonable assessment of the evidence and the facts have been made? Did that point ever exist?

The article just drones on and on like that.

Most of the people I see tweeting about this trial are not what I'd ever even consider right wing, most of them are either libertarians and centrists, leftists or progressives. The progressives are having literal meltdowns because so much doubt has been put into the claims made by Amber Heard because she's looking like a huge hypocrite. Everyone else seems to understand that there's way more nuance to the trial and that being hyperbolic does no one any good.

Agreed. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that being personally invested in the personal lives of these carnie trash actors marks someone as not being authentically right-wing.

[Endus]

So the Vox article (if you want to call it that) that was published yesterday was some pretty incendiary garbage full of patently false claims against people. Are American right wing media outlets trying to use it for their own gain? Undoubtedly.

Their claims that the narrative on social media in favor of Depp has been shaped by bots, citing an article from when the UK trial was going on a year ago. They actually make that claim twice using different articles, one from 2020 and one from 2021. They also have the audacity to cite one of their own ideologically charged articles claiming that the alt-right uses sexism and other kinds of bigotry to recruit men into their ideology.

Most of the people I see tweeting about this trial are not what I'd ever even consider right wing, most of them are either libertarians and centrists, leftists or progressives. The progressives are having literal meltdowns because so much doubt has been put into the claims made by Amber Heard because she's looking like a huge hypocrite. Everyone else seems to understand that there's way more nuance to the trial and that being hyperbolic does no one any good.

Why the hell would you think anything about this trial or people's perspectives on it is political? You're feeding directly into Vox's point and don't seem to realize it.

[Kumorii]

Link for anyone curious. The whole thing reads like a parody of "everything I don't like is Russian bots" journalism.

The article just drones on and on like that.

Agreed. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that being personally invested in the personal lives of these carnie trash actors marks someone as not being authentically right-wing.

The Depp-Heard trial has just trained millions of people to discard their own empathy, their own rational judgment, in exchange for the gleeful mockery, rejection, and belittlement

The article is complaining about the same thing people did against Depp when the allegations came up, which no one complained about. Or well, if you did and say, 'hold on, we don't know the full story' you would be labeled a sexist straight up.

It's hard to take an article like this seriously when everything in it just reads that you should form your behavior and opinion based on genders rather than evidence.
Pointing to a previous trial is pointless. Lots of trials comes to the wrong verdict... hence why there are innocence programs and such. People are using up to date information to form their opinion, meanwhile they are ignoring everything that has been shown and just cling on to "they decided this". Lots of current evidence wasn't allowed in that trial afaik.

The thing I do agree with though is that you shouldn't actively hate or doing smear campaigns and such for ANYONE. Problem is they are clearly biased.
The fact that they attribute a coming regression of believe women on people calling out her lies instead of Heards lies is further proof of my previous point that only thing that matters for them is genders and their own bias to their own narrative.

Unlike the article I hope this leads to betterment of how people behave when it comes to allegations and claims and such. People went from blindly supporting Heard instantly and demonizing Depp with no proof... but suddenly now it's a problem when there are proof of the reverse?

I've said it before, I say it again... IGNORE the genders involved. Believe the claimant and take it seriously, but don't trust any party involved until investigation is gone and for the love of god... LISTEN TO THE OTHER SIDE.
Don't be like Dr. Hughes.

if people and journalists adhere to above points, it won't become the clusterfuck it currently is. But I highly doubt the journalists will change much, since sensationalism is what sells... Next allegation that will come up will just create articles that repeat this process. Articles that has been posted recently just shows that it's all about mispresent information that everyone can see at trial to further the narrative they are trying to sell.




EDIT:
https://youtu.be/DhOwEyYjonk?t=2032

Talking about a similar article.

[Rennadrel]

Why the hell would you think anything about this trial or people's perspectives on it is political? You're feeding directly into Vox's point and don't seem to realize it.

That's the thing, I don't. They do. And that is a huge problem when it comes to actually having reasonable discourse online these days. People will cite these shitrag sites as being credible (even though they use their own blatantly biased reporting as citations for sources) and all of a sudden we have issues. Thankfully most people are starting to see through their garbage (and this isn't exclusive to Vox either).

[Veggie50]

Link for anyone curious. The whole thing reads like a parody of "everything I don't like is Russian bots" journalism.

The article just drones on and on like that.

Agreed. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that being personally invested in the personal lives of these carnie trash actors marks someone as not being authentically right-wing.

I enjoy it, sue me.

Preferably with AH’s lawyers.

[Endus]

That's the thing, I don't. They do. And that is a huge problem when it comes to actually having reasonable discourse online these days. People will cite these shitrag sites as being credible (even though they use their own blatantly biased reporting as citations for sources) and all of a sudden we have issues. Thankfully most people are starting to see through their garbage (and this isn't exclusive to Vox either).

You explicitly made it political in your own post, so spare me the flaccid post-facto rejection; your politicization of the trial is right there in black and white.

[Veggie50]

You explicitly made it political in your own post, so spare me the flaccid post-facto rejection; your politicization of the trial is right there in black and white.

Black on pasty yellow/green

[Jotaux]

People just like to put everything into their left or right boxes.

[Cthulhu 2020]

being a domestic abuser and wife beater is going well? lol okay.

The only people saying they saw Johnny Depp be a domestic abuser was Heard and her sister.

Funny, that.

Here's one thing people need to understand, while violence against your spouse is bad, there's a big difference between being a chronic domestic abuser, and two people who get really angry at each other and hit each other. That's called a fight. Not domestic abuse. Amber has admitted several times to hitting Depp.

Domestic abuse can be one time. A "domestic abuser" implies chronic problems.

[jonnysensible]

The only people saying they saw Johnny Depp be a domestic abuser was Heard and her sister.

Funny, that.

Here's one thing people need to understand, while violence against your spouse is bad, there's a big difference between being a chronic domestic abuser, and two people who get really angry at each other and hit each other. That's called a fight. Not domestic abuse. Amber has admitted several times to hitting Depp.

Domestic abuse can be one time. A "domestic abuser" implies chronic problems.

judge said the scum (or was it the mail) could call him a wife beater because 12 of the 14 examples of abuse met the threshold to be upheld. You don't even have to beat people up to be a domestic abuser it can all be mental abuse and gaslighting. But he did actually use physical abuse. So fuck him.

[Snowfunk]

judge said the scum (or was it the mail) could call him a wife beater because 12 of the 14 examples of abuse met the threshold to be upheld. You don't even have to beat people up to be a domestic abuser it can all be mental abuse and gaslighting. But he did actually use physical abuse. So fuck him.

Do you have any evidence, to back up the statement that he did actually physically abuse her?
Because everything she or her team has presented, shows nothing to support her claim.
She even partially agreed herself, that there is a lack of evidence. But it's not her "fault", since it was her own legal counsel that has it all, and failed to admit the "proper" evidence.
This while she even admitted to physically abusing Johnny herself.

Secondly, the UK trial, where the Judge let the "Sun" off the hook. Was largely because he considered Amber Heard credible, mostly because she had nothing to gain from it, since she donated the entire divorce settlement.
Which we now know she didn't, and is now possibly facing a perjury probe, for lying in court.

[Kumorii]

Do you have any evidence, to back up the statement that he did actually physically abuse her?
Because everything she or her team has presented, shows nothing to support her claim.
She even partially agreed herself, that there is a lack of evidence. But it's not her "fault", since it was her own legal counsel that has it all, and failed to admit the "proper" evidence.
This while she even admitted to physically abusing Johnny herself.

Secondly, the UK trial, where the Judge let the "Sun" off the hook. Was largely because he considered Amber Heard credible, mostly because she had nothing to gain from it, since she donated the entire divorce settlement.
Which we now know she didn't, and is now possibly facing a perjury probe, for lying in court.

She is also under investigate for perjury in Australia. Funnily enough.

[Jotaux]

The UK probe into perjury is just rumor at this point and the Australian perjury is for something unrelated to this case.

[Snowfunk]

The UK probe into perjury is just rumor at this point and the Australian perjury is for something unrelated to this case.

True.
The UK perjury is a fact at this point, still, it is not at all certain they will seek to prosecute it.
Not familiar with the Australian thing to be honest.

Still, it does say a lot about Amber Heard's character. She's proven in one instance, and suspected in another to be lying under oath.

[Daymanmb]

Because everything she or her team has presented, shows nothing to support her claim.

Patently, verifiably false. Theyve presented a lot of evidence..

[Magical Mudcrab]

Patently, verifiably false. Theyve presented a lot of evidence..

A lot of the evidence they've presented is contradictory to what they've provided in other sworn testimony, and sometimes is contradictory to statements made by other witnesses. What's worse is the attempts by Head and some of her witnesses to try and play word games in court. As an example of some minutia she decided to try and hide, Heard decided to argue that David Kipper was not her doctor, when she had stated that he was her doctor in an earlier deposition. Whether he was or wasn't her doctor was not some ground breaking point of contention, but she decided to argue the point which impeaches her credibility.

There's also fun coincidences that have been brought up, like the fact that there was this mysterious, anonymous complaint against the nursing license of Depp's nurse, Debbie Lloyd, for failing to report abuse. This occurred just before the defamation trial. Which is slightly conspicuous given her history of supporting Depp, and given she would later take the stand and portray Heard as the instigator in altercations. Really gets your noggin joggin'.

[Daymanmb]

A lot of the evidence they've presented is contradictory to what they've provided in other sworn testimony, and sometimes is contradictory to statements made by other witnesses. What's worse is the attempts by Head and some of her witnesses to try and play word games in court. As an example of some minutia she decided to try and hide, Heard decided to argue that David Kipper was not her doctor, when she had stated that he was her doctor in an earlier deposition. Whether he was or wasn't her doctor was not some ground breaking point of contention, but she decided to argue the point which impeaches her credibility.

There's also fun coincidences that have been brought up, like the fact that there was this mysterious, anonymous complaint against the nursing license of Depp's nurse, Debbie Lloyd, for failing to report abuse. This occurred just before the defamation trial. Which is slightly conspicuous given her history of supporting Depp, and given she would later take the stand and portray Heard as the instigator in altercations. Really gets your noggin joggin'.

Its interesting, people paid by Depp are telling the truth, but people testifying for Heard are liars. What makes you so certain of that assertion?

[Jotaux]

True.
The UK perjury is a fact at this point, still, it is not at all certain they will seek to prosecute it.
Not familiar with the Australian thing to be honest.

Still, it does say a lot about Amber Heard's character. She's proven in one instance, and suspected in another to be lying under oath.

Oh she definitely committed perjury in the UK but theres only the rumor that she's being investigated for it. I don't think they would bother because there's zero chance they could get her extradited for it. The Australia perjury has to do with bringing her dogs to the country.

- - - Updated - - -

Patently, verifiably false. Theyve presented a lot of evidence..

Such as? The only thing I saw was her sisters testimony which contradicts her own.

- - - Updated - - -

Its interesting, people paid by Depp are telling the truth, but people testifying for Heard are liars. What makes you so certain of that assertion?

I didn't realize the police are on Depp's payroll.