You could describe almost every domestic violence victim in this way my dude. When I threw my dad over a coffee table at 15 because I’d finally decided I’d really rather die than let him hit me anymore I became a participant by this standard.
1 Like
People are missing that this defamation specifically was about the post op-Ed. I have never read it so I can’t really weigh in on how those specific facts differ from other presented facts.
The op Ed and the Sun accusations may not necessarily be the same.
I posted it a while back but I thought this article about the #Metoo movement in Sweden and their approach to the legal system crushed it
Unlike in the United States, where truth is widely considered to be an absolute defense in defamation cases, Swedish law takes a two-step approach. The court first decides whether the alleged defamation is “justifiable”— that is, whether it’s of broad public interest. Only if the court decides that a statement is justifiable will it move on to consider whether or not it is true.
In this case, despite Mr. Virtanen’s being one of the highest-profile writers at the country’s largest newspaper, the court concluded that he was not enough of a public figure to justify public interest in his personal conduct. Ms. Wallin’s posts, in other words, were not justifiable, and as a result, it didn’t matter whether her account of their encounter was accurate. “The court will not review whether the statements were true,” the verdict read.
Sweden’s approach to defamation law stems in part from its broader philosophical approach to justice.
In the United States, defamation is typically considered a civil matter, something to be sorted out between two parties. In Sweden, civil lawsuits for defamation are, in theory, an option, but in practice, relatively few are ever filed. Damages are kept low, so as not to encourage individuals or corporations to sue. The idea is that conflict between citizens should be resolved via the state, said Fredrik Bergman, a constitutional lawyer who heads the Center for Justice, a public interest law firm in Stockholm.
Sweden is not a smaller, colder America with better child care. It is a different society — a country of just 10 million people, built on consensus and collectivism, where schoolteachers are instructed, as part of the government’s national guidelines for educators, to emphasize the importance to children of being able to “relate to and understand the situation of others and to develop a desire to act while considering what is also best for those others.”
To be an outcast in such a society has different and potentially more extreme consequences than in the United States, and the strict legislation around defamation reflects the importance of protecting each citizen’s right to remain a part of the collective.
“You could even be convicted for defaming a criminal,” Mr. Bergman said. “If it means other people could look down on that person, it doesn’t matter whether something has been proved in court; it could still be defamation. That’s how valuable the right for anyone to participate and reintegrate in society is viewed.”
In many ways, this approach is appealing. It encourages forgiveness, a fresh start: Even criminals should be able to serve out their sentences and have the opportunity to reintegrate without the additional and arbitrary punishment of being shunned when it’s over.
AS A GOOD DAUGHTER OF SWEDEN, I was always a rule follower, confident that my country provided the greatest of protections for both women and their speech.
But as an immigrant to the United States who spent two decades in New York, I watched the fallout from Ms. Wallin’s Instagram post and her subsequent ordeal with a growing sense of disbelief. Maybe I was a radical now, too.
It’s not that speaking out about sexual misconduct in the United States is risk-free. Any woman speaking out about a man’s actions runs the risk of being sued and owing damages and legal fees. And of course, there is the risk of doxxing and other forms of harassment. But the law tries to provide protections — among them, by holding that a true statement can never lead to liability in a defamation suit.
JoAnne Sweeny, a law professor at the University of Louisville who has studied and published several articles and an academic paper on the legal fallout in the United States and internationally after #MeToo, told me she knows of no current U.S. cases in which a woman is in serious legal jeopardy of losing a defamation suit as a result of accusing a man of misconduct since the #MeToo movement began.
i get it. you loved that one pirate movie like the millions of other people and are willing to ignore the massive amounts of verbal, emotional, and mental abuse hurled by the captain jack dude as not “real” abuse.
I don’t believe that’s true. They don’t give a shit about Johnny Depp. They are absolutely psyched that they get to use this to say they were right, #metoo is a load of horseshit, and women really are just manipulative lying c***s after all.
And you will say “and that’s why you should be angry at Amber Heard”, but that depends on accepting the narrative that’s being carried by the incel warriors. I think Heard and Depp are both awful FWIW.
8 Likes
Edit: (should note I’m grunching and haven’t read all 100 prior posts, just saw this thread now).
I think a few things should be clear to anyone that followed the trial. I don’t think any of the following should be in dispute (not trying to end or stifle discussion by claiming some expertise, but I watched pretty much all of Johnny and Amber’s testimony, and probably half the other stuff):
- Both Amber and Johnny suck and were in a toxic relationship.
- Both abused each other verbally (we have video of this).
- Both had anger issues - especially for Johnny when he was drunk (again we have video plus Johnny admits to trashing Amber’s stuff on a few occasions). He also sent his friends vile emails about Amber. In one that he claims was “directly” from Monte Python he wrote - “Let’s burn her. Let’s drown her before we burn her. I will fuck her burnt corpse afterwards to make sure she is dead.” That’s not really how that sketch went and the fucking the burnt corpse was his own demented mind. This is not the text that a sane rational person sends. Johnny has also been physically violent before - although this is the first allegation involving a woman. Amber’s team was not allowed to present evidence of his prior violence due to legal issues.
- For most of the alleged incidents Johnny was drunk and angry - he doesn’t deny most of the fights, just that he didn’t hit her; however, given his drunk state, I’ve always wondered how he can be so sure. I definitely have moments I don’t remember from college due to being drunk, and was never as wasted as he often was
- Amber has pictures of bruises from many of the incidents (some even from before their wedding).
So either Amber was planning this whole thing from before they got married, or Johnny actually did hit her on some occasions. Johnny’s legal team spent lots of time showing Amber looking ok the next day, but they didn’t actually dispute the pictures were real, just that they might have been enhanced to make the bruises/swelling look worse.
My take is that Amber lost for 3 reasons:
- Johnny was a better witness - he was very good at being light, telling jokes, and likely charmed the jury. Amber was a bad witness and probably over acted. She probably also exaggerated some stuff to make Johnny look worse and to minimize her role in the fights/abuse. IMO, she would have been far better off admitting her own faults, but I can see why that is hard to do.
- Johnny had better lawyers (and experts - the difference in the caliber of experts was stark). In particular they made Amber look bad by showing mostly small discrepancies (the most damning was probably the donation, where she made was stupid comment that she had donated the money rather than pledged it, but then doubled down at trial that it wasn’t really different). Also, Amber’s team did a bad job highlighting what a vile angry monster Johnny was when he was drunk.
- People are still skeptical of women making abuse claims. Maybe not overtly, but all the data shows that people think a substantial portion of abuse victims’ claims are fabricated, when in reality very few are.
I also think social media was very unfair to Amber as lots of the criticism was stuff like she’s not shedding any tears, analyzing her body language to “prove” she’s a liar. I’d also note that the biggest proponents of this were RWNJ. For instance, all the youtube analysts with the most views on this were the same people championing Rittenhouse, the January 6th insurrectionists, etc. They saw this as a chance to cast doubt on all future abuse claims and jumped in with both feet.
9 Likes
Early on I read that Depp hired a team of social media people to come up with memes and stories to boost his case in the public. Then I saw a bunch of antiHeard memes shared about as the trial was going on.
So I’m not surprised so many people are on his side. The algorithm is doing its job
9 Likes
This might be the cheapest shot I’ve ever seen posted here.
2 Likes
what? me not addressing the poster’s personal history as some kind of rebuttal towards this story?
maybe if you blindly ignore how the situations are completely unrelated and not remotely analogous to one another considering the power dynamics at hand in abusive relationships. and how depp was clearly in the position of power(physically, economically, socially) in the relationship and the poster was clearly not when in a parent/child relationship…
none of that is a “cheap shot”.
Just wanted to add one more thought/rant, that may only be of interest to me as a lawyer.
This case shows the big issue with the US legal system, more money often wins the day. I can’t emphasize enough how important my point 2 was. Depp’s lawyers and experts were far better, but also far more expensive. And that goes a long way with the jury.
One basic example you can see of this is how often the judge sustained objections to Heard’s lawyers when questioning her (but not for Johnny’s direct). That should rarely happen on direct. A direct examination is scripted and rehearsed numerous times, so the lawyer should be able to write questions that aren’t objectionable. Obviously some times the witness will get into hearsay, speculation, etc., but so many times Heard’s lawyer made basic mistakes like forgetting to lay foundation, asking compound questions, calling for speculation. She even asked leading questions (which you can do on cross but not direct). This is such a basic legal sin - it’s pretty easy to frame the question in a way that is not leading but the witness still knows the answer you want. You’ve also had ample time to rehearse your direct, so you shouldn’t really need to lead the witness that much. Yet, Amber’s lawyer kept doing it the entire examination and seemed to get flustered when the judge sustained these objections.
Having objections consistently sustained really throws off the flow of your direct and made Amber an even worse witness than she would have been.
I really wanted to murder Amber’s lawyers (particularly Elaine) for the horrible job they did.
1 Like
The only bit of the trial I watched was the Amber Heard cross examination where that young dark haired lawyer for Depp absolutely brutalized Heard. I googled the lawyer and she was an associate, which surprised me that an associate would be handling such a high profile examination. Given how well she did, she’s not going to be an associate for long, right? She was just relentless, incredibly prepared, and the most withering, contemptuous, incredulous attitude that seemed very well calibrated to getting under Heard’s skin.
Some people seem to be especially skeptical if a rich man is being abused because they assume the woman is in it for the money. They believe all confidential settlements are because it’s cheaper than going to trial.
Being a great litigator isn’t really that important of a skill for most lawyers. Big cases almost never go to trial (most settle or are resolved on motions). I wouldn’t be surprised if this was her first trial (I was a “litigator” at a big firm for 9 years and never once went to trial - closest I came was case that settled a few weeks before trial was to start). Making partner is all about brining in business or there are a few associates so good at their work that the firm can’t lose them (but this is rare).
She’s a super senior associate - graduated in 2010. So she’s got the experience, they just didn’t see a need to make her partner and give her a cut of their profits. It was definitely a big role to play, but they almost certainly were picking a woman for that cross, and she was likely their most qualified female litigator.
Given her new fame, she’ll make partner as she’s now going to bring in clients. She can probably write her own ticket at any firm that does this type of high profile celebrity work.
2 Likes
To reiterate this point, before I realized how biased even the legal analysts on youtube were, I was watching a stream where the main legal “analyst” stated that he was happy this happened to Depp because he was the perfect “victim” since he was sympathetic to the left and thus people on the left wouldn’t dismiss his claims. His examples of people unfairly accused but who couldn’t fight back and win public sympathy because there were right wingers were Kelsey Grammer, Bill O’Reilly, and a few more I forget. They were giddy celebrating this as the death nail in the metoo movement. This guy was getting over 1 million views on his youtube videos about the trial.
2 Likes
Submitting the same (slightly edited) photo as different pieces of evidence multiple times and then doubling down on it during cross seemed like a majorly stupid and fatal unforced error. Camille just absolutely shredded them on it, because it’s one of those “don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining” Judge Judyisms where it seems they are transparently trying to gaslight the jury and play them for fools. I mean, all of the back and forth quibbling over the metadata with objections and sidebars, Heard taking an evasive tone and contradicting her own testimony, both her and their own expert saying the photos I posted above “appear” to be different. And the jury, who aren’t even jpeg experts like most of us here, knew the entire time that those were unequivocally exactly the same photos.
Right - it was bad. It was also so dumb and obvious I just can’t believe it was intentional attempt to slip one through. I would be super curious to know what caused them to do that - the expert showed that the metadata indicated both pictures were taken the same day (and were taken after one of the alleged incidents) so it’s not like they were fake. They also didn’t submit photos of every incident, so it’s not like they were trying to create after the fact evidence to support all her claims.
I guess it could be an error by her legal team, but then seems odd they didn’t just fall on the sword and admit their mistake (although maybe since Heard had already testified about both by then, they thought it was just better to take the never admit anything path).
my first solo trial was on day# 4 of being a lawyer. granted it was only a misdemeanor domestic violence prosecution where the pre-trial plea deal was a maximum penalty of 6 mo. probation. it’s interesting to me that some of these firms don’t have the few token ex-prosecutors as the real “litigators” that these matters get handed off to come trial time. but it could be exactly as you mentioned that they needed a female attorney for jury optics.
Amber Heard will join the Dixie Chicks as perfect examples of people who’ve been “cancelled” that will never be cited by people with the most to say about Cancel Culture.
1 Like
So you’re actually doubling down on the reason he feels and argues the way he does is celebrity worship?
That’s ridiculous.
1 Like