EXCLUSIVE: 'I can't promise I won't get physical again, I get so mad I lose it.' LISTEN as Amber Heard admits to 'hitting' ex-husband Johnny Depp

[konfab]

Holy shyte balls... This shyte is still going on?

Damn Amber owes her white Knight the night of his life...

The white knight probably feels a bit guilty about having a look through her iCloud leaks.

 

[cerebus]

Just a reminder that world's richest guy Elon Musk called someone who was trying to save the lives of children 'pedo guy' for criticising him, then doubled down on it later, and still was ruled to be protected speech under the 1A. But Heard doesn't mention the name of Depp and she's on the hook for more money than she has.

Also a reminder that Depp's team had to shop around the US to find the one state that doesn't have anti-SLAPP laws in place so they could even bring a defamation suit for this case. Their home state of California would have thrown it out on the spot.

Anyone who's even slightly interested in freedom of speech should be very concerned with this outcome. But hey, Clarence Thomas has been itching for a chance to overturn actual malice, so you're doing him a favour.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Just a reminder that world's richest guy Elon Musk called someone who was trying to save the lives of children 'pedo guy' for criticising him, then doubled down on it later, and still was ruled to be protected speech under the 1A. But Heard doesn't mention the name of Depp and she's on the hook for more money than she has.

Also a reminder that Depp's team had to shop around the US to find the one state that doesn't have anti-SLAPP laws in place so they could even bring a defamation suit for this case. Their home state of California would have thrown it out on the spot.

Anyone who's even slightly interested in freedom of speech should be very concerned with this outcome. But hey, Clarence Thomas has been itching for a chance to overturn actual malice, so you're doing him a favour.

Ok and?

 

[cerebus]

Ok and?

And...what? I made my point pretty well in the post. This is a terrible precedent for defamation lawsuits going forward. The 1a protects speech very widely. If this article can be used as a standard of defamation, it's going to bring forward a ton of equally frivolous and vindictive lawsuits.

That's actually the point her lawyers were making in the appeal briefing. They weren't saying that it doesn't matter if the events didn't happen. They were saying that the standard of proof for actual malice wasn't even close to being proven.

 

[Kieppie]

Holy shyte balls... This shyte is still going on?

Damn Amber owes her white Knight the night of his life...

Me waiting to see if @cerebus can push it to 100 pages..

 

[ToxicBunny]

And...what? I made my point pretty well in the post. This is a terrible precedent for defamation lawsuits going forward. The 1a protects speech very widely. If this article can be used as a standard of defamation, it's going to bring forward a ton of equally frivolous and vindictive lawsuits.

That's actually the point her lawyers were making in the appeal briefing. They weren't saying that it doesn't matter if the events didn't happen. They were saying that the standard of proof for actual malice wasn't even close to being proven.

So have the won the appeal yet, or is this going to be more of the Turd lying and trying to act and making her name even more mud?

 

[TelkomUseless]

Just a reminder that world's richest guy Elon Musk called someone who was trying to save the lives of children 'pedo guy' for criticising him, then doubled down on it later, and still was ruled to be protected speech under the 1A. But Heard doesn't mention the name of Depp and she's on the hook for more money than she has.

Also a reminder that Depp's team had to shop around the US to find the one state that doesn't have anti-SLAPP laws in place so they could even bring a defamation suit for this case. Their home state of California would have thrown it out on the spot.

Anyone who's even slightly interested in freedom of speech should be very concerned with this outcome. But hey, Clarence Thomas has been itching for a chance to overturn actual malice, so you're doing him a favour.

But she did admit that she wrote about JD (if you followed the case)

Amber Heard Admits She Wrote Op-Ed About Johnny Depp Because He Is A 'Powerful Man'

Heard's statements contradict previous claims that the 2018 Washington Post article was not about her ex-husband.

www.ladbible.com

Edit: 100 pages... here we come! lol

 

[cerebus]

So have the won the appeal yet, or is this going to be more of the Turd lying and trying to act and making her name even more mud?

I don't know what will happen on appeal. I think they have a pretty good chance of overturning it on 1a principles alone but it might have to go up a level or 2. The fact that Depp's team won in the first place is kind of incredible.

Judge, jury and social media trial — Why Johnny Depp lost libel suit in UK but won in US

Johnny Depp-Amber Heard drama kept US on edge for weeks. ThePrint explains defamation laws in the UK and US and how social media swung the verdict in favour of the ‘Pirates’ star.

theprint.in

The jurors had to answer a series of questions in ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ — one of those being whether they felt Depp had proved that Heard acted with actual malice.

Actual malice is the threshold required to prove defamation — especially when it involves a public figure. It requires a person to prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge that they were false, or with reckless disregard of the truth. The jury answered ‘Yes’ to all these questions.

 

[ToxicBunny]

I don't know what will happen on appeal. I think they have a pretty good chance of overturning it on 1a principles alone but it might have to go up a level or 2. The fact that Depp's team won in the first place is kind of incredible.

Judge, jury and social media trial — Why Johnny Depp lost libel suit in UK but won in US

Johnny Depp-Amber Heard drama kept US on edge for weeks. ThePrint explains defamation laws in the UK and US and how social media swung the verdict in favour of the ‘Pirates’ star.

theprint.in

So come back when the appeal is done... either to gloat about being right (and none of us actually giving a shyte) or for us to rail on you some more for stupid white knighting.

 

[cerebus]

But she did admit that she wrote about JD (if you followed the case)

Amber Heard Admits She Wrote Op-Ed About Johnny Depp Because He Is A 'Powerful Man'

Heard's statements contradict previous claims that the 2018 Washington Post article was not about her ex-husband.

www.ladbible.com

Edit: 100 pages... here we come! lol

Yes I know she admitted that contextually she was referring to Depp. You are right about that. That's not the point. Point is, the threshold of defamation in the US is still ridiculously high. As I said before Musk directly called someone a pedophile on Twitter more than once and still got away with it. Heard made one statement where she referred to herself as "a public figure representing domestic abuse". Even on the most factual level, that statement is true - she was in the public as a representative of domestic abuse. How is it defamatory?

 

[cerebus]

So come back when the appeal is done... either to gloat about being right (and none of us actually giving a shyte) or for us to rail on you some more for stupid white knighting.

There are conversations happening and I'm responding to them. I've gotten so much flak for it that I don't really care what anyone thinks tbh.

 

[ToxicBunny]

There are conversations happening and I'm responding to them. I've gotten so much flak for it that I don't really care what anyone thinks tbh.

I somehow also think nobody gives a toss what you think about this topic either, other than providing endless entertainment for the rest of us.

 

[cerebus]

I somehow also think nobody gives a toss what you think about this topic either, other than providing endless entertainment for the rest of us.

Well that's fine.

 

[TelkomUseless]

Yes I know she admitted that contextually she was referring to Depp. You are right about that. That's not the point. Point is, the threshold of defamation in the US is still ridiculously high. As I said before Musk directly called someone a pedophile on Twitter more than once and still got away with it. Heard made one statement where she referred to herself as "a public figure representing domestic abuse". Even on the most factual level, that statement is true - she was in the public as a representative of domestic abuse. How is it defamatory?

Well.. she got called out about her "abuse" claims. She had to prove her claim and failed hard.

 

[cerebus]

Well.. she got called out about her "abuse" claims. She had to prove her claim and failed hard.

Did Musk have to prove that the diver was a pedophile? I mean that's what he called him.

 

[TelkomUseless]

Did Musk have to prove that the diver was a pedophile? I mean that's what he called him.

Different cases. You will have to deep dive and see the reasons in there...

edit: Not all court cases are exactly the same. From high level yes.. but not the details.

 

[cerebus]

Different cases. You will have to deep dive and see the reasons in there...

Lol ok

 

[TelkomUseless]

Lol ok

Have you been in court ? Ever been divorced? Is it a copy paste case same results every time ?

 

[tetrasect]

I don't know what will happen on appeal. I think they have a pretty good chance of overturning it on 1a principles alone but it might have to go up a level or 2. The fact that Depp's team won in the first place is kind of incredible.

It requires a person to prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge that they were false, or with reckless disregard of the truth.

Are you suggesting that Amber didn't know that her claims were false? In that case she should have pleaded insanity, which would have actually made a lot more sense to everyone.

Yes I know she admitted that contextually she was referring to Depp. You are right about that. That's not the point. Point is, the threshold of defamation in the US is still ridiculously high. As I said before Musk directly called someone a pedophile on Twitter more than once and still got away with it. Heard made one statement where she referred to herself as "a public figure representing domestic abuse". Even on the most factual level, that statement is true - she was in the public as a representative of domestic abuse. How is it defamatory?

That's a ridiculous comparison and you know it.

If Musk had gone on to say that he had witnessed the guy having sex with a child, with specific details, then that would have been a different story. As is Amber's.

 

[cerebus]

Have you been in court ? Ever been divorced? Is it a copy paste case same results every time ?

Are you really so unwilling to admit that there's a double standard at play here? Like, a really glaringly obvious one?