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

[TelkomUseless]

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

Wowzers dude. Go and speak to an USA lawyer to make an informed decision dude. Someone who can take the LEGAL facts and explain it.

You want to look at a court case from 1) different country , 2) different evidence etc and just say it's the same.

 

[konfab]

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.

How much money did the "pedo guy" lose after being called that by Elon Musk? What was the specific damages to his income that was caused by Musk's Tweet? What damages to his reputation were made?

No-one believed Musk at all. Which is why Vernon got an MBE at Buckingham Palace.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...ceives-mbe-at-buckingham-palace-a4165846.html

What happened as a result of Heard's article? Oh right, Depp was blacklisted from everything and lost out on the next Pirates of the Caribbean contract.

And you cannot go onto CNN, say Elon Musk must stick his submarine up his arse, and then claim that your reputation as a private individual has been defamed. He became a public figure the moment he voluntarily went on CNN.

 

[Splinter]

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

Oh give it a rest. You keep on ignoring being slammed with actual facts and carry on whining with your ludicrous opinions.

 

[lumeer]

But Heard doesn't mention the name of Depp

As Depp's one witness pointed out when this was put to him: Did Ms Heard have some other partner who had been abusing her two years prior to the opinion piece?

Anyone who's even slightly interested in freedom of speech should be very concerned with this outcome.

This is no more an infringement on Heard's freedom of speech than prosecuting a trespasser is an infringement on their right to freedom of movement.

 

[konfab]

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.

From Sullivan vs New York Times:

The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice

You see what I highlighted for you? Amber Heard would have had direct knowledge about whether the abuse happened or not by the nature of the events. This means that Depp had to prove that Amber Heard was lying about the claims of abuse in order to qualify as actual malice.

 

[konfab]

As Depp's one witness pointed out when this was put to him: Did Ms Heard have some other partner who had been abusing her two years prior to the opinion piece?

This is no more an infringement on Heard's freedom of speech than prosecuting a trespasser is an infringement on their right to freedom of movement.

We are talking about progressives, whereby the standard for self defence is that if you don't give the person assaulting you a blowjob, you should be thrown in prison for violating their rights.

 

[tetrasect]

Here we go again...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1550277124749430784

 

[ShaunSA]

Here we go again...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1550277124749430784

She finally got @cerebus on her team?

 

[cerebus]

Here we go again...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1550277124749430784

Somehow she must have managed to secure the money to make the appeal. Virginia's laws on this are so fk'd. I think she'll have a better chance going before the appellate judges but who knows? All the best to her, I'll be following it of course.

In other news, the nephew of Ricky Martin dropped his claim of abuse amid a very familiar public response. The fallout of Depp v Heard is just getting started.

But y'all care about male victims now right?

 

[YoungSandwich]

Somehow she must have managed to secure the money to make the appeal. Virginia's laws on this are so fk'd. I think she'll have a better chance going before the appellate judges but who knows? All the best to her, I'll be following it of course.

In other news, the nephew of Ricky Martin dropped his claim of abuse amid a very familiar public response. The fallout of Depp v Heard is just getting started.

But y'all care about male victims now right?

Well, I mean - when the Trial of Ricky Martin drops we can all decide if we care about this particular male. Be sure to catch it this time, I can't want for the Q and A thread after that one.

 

[cerebus]

Well, I mean - when the Trial of Ricky Martin drops we can all decide if we care about this particular male. Be sure to catch it this time, I can't want for the Q and A thread after that one.

It's not gonna drop. And if it does I surely hope it isn't televised.

 

[YoungSandwich]

It's not gonna drop. And if it does I surely hope it isn't televised.

Well aren't you Mr Glass Half Full this morning

 

[cerebus]

Well aren't you Mr Glass Half Full this morning

What reason should I have to be optimistic? You seem to think it's a good thing that trials of abuse get televised so everyone can decide if they believe the accusations. As if the general public doesn't have an innate bias to believing men and especially beloved celebrities. As if TikTok and other social media won't circulate clips of facial reactions during traumatic accounts and use them to mock and vilify the accuser. As if the courtroom won't turn into a circus where hundreds of fans can show up daily and stand outside mocking the accuser on their way in.

Trials like this should not happen in public, imo.

 

[tetrasect]

Somehow she must have managed to secure the money to make the appeal. Virginia's laws on this are so fk'd. I think she'll have a better chance going before the appellate judges but who knows? All the best to her, I'll be following it of course.

She hasn't actually paid yet, she's only "pledged" it.

This filing notifies the court of the her appeal but the actual appeal and the cash payment only has to be done before September.

 

[YoungSandwich]

What reason should I have to be optimistic? You seem to think it's a good thing that trials of abuse get televised so everyone can decide if they believe the accusations. As if the general public doesn't have an innate bias to believing men and especially beloved celebrities. As if TikTok and other social media won't circulate clips of facial reactions during traumatic accounts and use them to mock and vilify the accuser. As if the courtroom won't turn into a circus where hundreds of fans can show up daily and stand outside mocking the accuser on their way in.

Trials like this should not happen in public, imo.

1) It is a good thing - it allows transparency into the courtroom and the media can't perform any ****ery.
2) LOOOOOOOL, will you sit there and honestly say unironically that the general public believes male celebrities over females? What about Bill Cosby? Weinstein? Even Depp, they were all condemned before they even had a chance to get their pants on.
3) Well I will agree with you on this - this should not be the case. Only court staff and officials should be allowed anywhere near the building, it's not a publicity show.

 

[tetrasect]

As if the general public doesn't have an innate bias to believing men and especially beloved celebrities. As if TikTok and other social media won't circulate clips of facial reactions during traumatic accounts and use them to mock and vilify the accuser. As if the courtroom won't turn into a circus where hundreds of fans can show up daily and stand outside mocking the accuser on their way in.

Trials like this should not happen in public, imo.

Yeah that's exactly what happens. Every time.

 

[Jean Claude Vaaldamme]

What reason should I have to be optimistic? You seem to think it's a good thing that trials of abuse get televised so everyone can decide if they believe the accusations. As if the general public doesn't have an innate bias to believing men and especially beloved celebrities. As if TikTok and other social media won't circulate clips of facial reactions during traumatic accounts and use them to mock and vilify the accuser. As if the courtroom won't turn into a circus where hundreds of fans can show up daily and stand outside mocking the accuser on their way in.

Trials like this should not happen in public, imo.

Shame, his dog stepped on a bee

 

[konfab]

What reason should I have to be optimistic? You seem to think it's a good thing that trials of abuse get televised so everyone can decide if they believe the accusations. As if the general public doesn't have an innate bias to believing men and especially beloved celebrities. As if TikTok and other social media won't circulate clips of facial reactions during traumatic accounts and use them to mock and vilify the accuser. As if the courtroom won't turn into a circus where hundreds of fans can show up daily and stand outside mocking the accuser on their way in.

Trials like this should not happen in public, imo.

Members of the general public determines the fact in common law. This is why juries are called juries of your peers.
Which means it is absolutely critical that jury trials are made as public as possible.

 

[Charlesjjm]

Somehow she must have managed to secure the money to make the appeal. Virginia's laws on this are so fk'd. I think she'll have a better chance going before the appellate judges but who knows? All the best to her, I'll be following it of course.

In other news, the nephew of Ricky Martin dropped his claim of abuse amid a very familiar public response. The fallout of Depp v Heard is just getting started.

But y'all care about male victims now right?

So you've basically already decided Ricky is guilty. Without even a shred of evidence.

 

[Cray]

1) It is a good thing - it allows transparency into the courtroom and the media can't perform any ****ery.
2) LOOOOOOOL, will you sit there and honestly say unironically that the general public believes male celebrities over females? What about Bill Cosby? Weinstein? Even Depp, they were all condemned before they even had a chance to get their pants on.

That's a terrible example, Cosby and Weinstein got away with their crimes for years because they were very powerful men in their industry and their victims were afraid to come forward. Especially Cosby with his oh-so-wholesome reputation.

I don't agree/disagree but citing Cosby and Weinstein is not a great way to make your point.