Johnny Depp's Defamation Suit

[Draco-Onis]

Him and UK judge are stupid.
The US trial basically just proved the UK one was bullcrap and full of bias.

Not really even in the US he would lose because he was suing a newspaper, I am not sure about UK laws but freedom of the press gives journalists really wide latitudes on public figures.

[Veggie50]

Not really even in the US he would lose because he was suing a newspaper, I am not sure about UK laws but freedom of the press gives journalists really wide latitudes on public figures.

From what I’ve been told, the UK has some strict libel laws. Supposedly it was far harder to sue Heard for defamation than it was (theoretically) to sue the sun. That’s what makes this win even more extraordinary.

[NotBigzo]

You mean we trust qualified professionals to rule on matters of law?

Whatever you want to call it. Enjoy your self-absorbed overlords.

Thinking they're somehow better than a jury of peers once something goes to trial is fucking weird.

[Traveler Voltin]

Not really even in the US he would lose because he was suing a newspaper, I am not sure about UK laws but freedom of the press gives journalists really wide latitudes on public figures.

i am talking about bias. you are talking about winning and losing.
so wtf is your problem?

[Doctor Amadeus]

When considering defamation, you need to establish a few things (in lay terms):
1) The statements were made about you.
.

No, and we aren't going to agree on any of the other elements or leap frog to the conclusion.

- - - Updated - - -

Him and UK judge are stupid.
The US trial basically just proved the UK one was bullcrap and full of bias.

Nah it proved people in the U.S are easily willing too be swayed by celebrity or any other bias when it applies justice.

[NED funded]

Just so we are clear even if we are to assume Amber Heard lied abt the abuse you still have to prove that the specific op-ed she wrote was the reason Johnny Depp suffered economic damage by losing roles.

Mind you, the OP-ed came 2 years after the scandal. I hate trial by jury for this reason

[Rennadrel]

Was it? After he got accused, he was marked an abuser and turned into a pariah. No one wanted to higher such hot potato, and you do not often see actors switched between movies in the series due to drama. So you say the trial was about his ego, where it was more about him trying to clear his name and restore his career.

Considering he was cast to reprise one of his most popular roles in a new Pirates of the Caribbean movie before summarily being axed because of backlash over the abuse allegations in the WaPo article and social media in general being chalk full of midwits who started screeching about it pretty much on queue, causing him to get canned and replaced by Margot Robbie (no offense to her, but she can't fill that kind of a role). Of course the trial was about proving his innocence and clearing his name, because it was so blatantly obvious that he had been blackballed by Hollywood despite there being no evidence to prove he had done anything wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

No, and we aren't going to agree on any of the other elements or leap frog to the conclusion.

- - - Updated - - -



Nah it proved people in the U.S are easily willing too be swayed by celebrity or any other bias when it applies justice.

Considering Heard verified in her testimony that the OpEd was about him, she let the mask slip and sealed her own fate. Depp didn't even have to try all that hard to prove that she defamed him, because she did such a shit job at proving that she didn't by making that statement under oath.

[korijenkins]

Not really even in the US he would lose because he was suing a newspaper, I am not sure about UK laws but freedom of the press gives journalists really wide latitudes on public figures.

As I understand it he lost his case against the Sun because the judge inexplicably discarded most evidence he provided and ignored his witnesses (friends and employees) because they were biased in his favor, yet chose to hear out Heard's witnesses (also friends and employees). A big factor in it as well was her claiming to have donated the money. Apparently that convinced the judge that her intentions were pure. Realistically it was a dumb thing to look at in either case. Donating the money or keeping it doesn't really matter in my eyes; it's clear she was after his reputation. Still that judge probably feels like an absolute moron now.

One thing I do find funny is the constant pushing by Heard and her team that "we won in the UK" when really they weren't on trial in the UK. They aren't the Sun.

[Forogil]

You mean we trust qualified professionals to rule on matters of law?

In jury systems it's usually that juries decide matters of fact and judges matters of law.
Most of the relevant decisions here were 'matters of fact' (like 'did someone hit someone') not 'matters of law' (what is required for a defamation); and the judge in England clearly decided 'matters of fact' - similarly as Judge Judy does in arbitration (as I understand some civil cases are decided by judges in the US).

I didn't follow that trial in England, so I don't know what happened - and Judge Judy doesn't give me confidence that replacing juries by judges will improve the US judicial system.

[Forogil]

From what I’ve been told, the UK has some strict libel laws. Supposedly it was far harder to sue Heard for defamation than it was (theoretically) to sue the sun. That’s what makes this win even more extraordinary.

True, it has even been so bad that the UK made laws against libel tourism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism where people sue in the UK just because it is easier to prove defamation in the UK; even if the libel happened elsewhere.

[Mayhem]

A jury of your peers is the worst system imaginable. You get people who don’t understand the applicable laws deciding whether or not someone broke the law. It’s silly as shit.

Correct me if I am wrong but what is applicable or not would be decided by the judge before it's presented to the jury.

[Forogil]

A jury of your peers is the worst system imaginable. You get people who don’t understand the applicable laws deciding whether or not someone broke the law. It’s silly as shit.

The usual description is 12 men (well, fewer in this case) whose only qualification is that they cannot get out of jury duty.

However, even if not ideal there seems to be worse systems: judicial combat, judges deciding on their own, but lacking legal training (found in early Rome and they can be elected in states like New York), and probably a few more.

[Makabreska]

So like, what. USA has been using a deeply flawed judicial system for centuries?

[Doctor Amadeus]

Considering Heard verified in her testimony that the OpEd was about him, she let the mask slip and sealed her own fate. Depp didn't even have to try all that hard to prove that she defamed him, because she did such a shit job at proving that she didn't by making that statement under oath.

Yeah after the fact Depp isn't suing for what was confirmed by her in court. His complaint is that when the article was written people knew.

[Veggie50]

Yeah after the fact Depp isn't suing for what was confirmed by her in court. His complaint is that when the article was written people knew.

We are all deeply sorry you lacked the intelligence to infer that which is clearly implied.

[Doctor Amadeus]

We are all deeply sorry you lacked the intelligence to infer that which is clearly implied.

It's a lack of bias, nobody intelligent is cheering this bullshit, nor are they unclear what this means.

The Other Narrative is a Man Near 60 witch Millions, bodyguards and fame is the victim of an article that didn't mention him, he wasn't, whether she was a victim is completely irrelevant to this case.

[uuuhname]

welp, if I had any reservations on the verdict the reactions from the worst parts of the internet make it even more sinister what the consequences of this trial are going to be.

[Calfredd]

welp, if I had any reservations on the verdict the reactions from the worst parts of the internet make it even more sinister what the consequences of this trial are going to be.

Yeah Milchshake, jonnysensible, and Mall Security haven't been eliciting much hope.

[Captain Proton]

It's a lack of bias, nobody intelligent is cheering this bullshit, nor are they unclear what this means.

The Other Narrative is a Man Near 60 witch Millions, bodyguards and fame is the victim of an article that didn't mention him, he wasn't, whether she was a victim is completely irrelevant to this case.

You're literally arguing out ignorance of both trials, frequently making statements that are clearly wrong if you actually watched the trial, then insult other people's intelligence? Fucking hilarious.

[Magical Mudcrab]

No, and we aren't going to agree on any of the other elements or leap frog to the conclusion.

The article implied it was Depp and she explicitly said it was Depp during the trial. There's no "leap [frogging] to the conclusion" here, you're just rejecting the facts of the matter because of your own biases.