The Amber Heard and Johnny Depp trial

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > The Amber Heard and Johnny Depp trial

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

I think the judge was bored one day and wished for an exciting trial and this is the monkey paw version of that wish coming true.

# ¿ May 25, 2022 19:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 15:11

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

Khorne posted:

A defense to defamation is that you genuinely believe what you're saying. Heard's team has avoided this for whatever reason, but it would have worked well here.

I don't think that works for factual claims though, only opinions. Like 'Jim is a terrible painter' is an opinion, 'Jim has never painted anything' is a factual claim that can be true or not.

What I don't get is why Heard seems to be claiming both a) the op-ed wasn't about Depp and b) Depp was abusive. Seems weird, why not just say "yah it was about Depp, every word was true, gently caress you".

# ¿ May 27, 2022 00:41

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

Wifi Toilet posted:

Is this over yet? Which one's going to prison?

poo poo is there any jurisdiction where the jury can go "gently caress this was a waste, both parties must pay 10x court costs" because that sounds rad as hell.

# ¿ May 28, 2022 05:15

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

Long-Time Lurker posted:

Don't really wanna resort to reducing this to a Hitler comparison but since you did it first; liking coffee--an innocuous interest a lot of people have in common with--is not the same as sharing some of Hitler's ideas. (Note: No one here is doing that, just saying the comparison doesn't work)

Except I don't see anyone in this thread spouting incel/MRA talking points, or saying poo poo like "see this is typical of women, lying about abuse". What are you seeing in here? What's led you to believe Depp is an abuser and Heard isn't?

# ¿ May 28, 2022 06:33

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

Long-Time Lurker posted:

You don't have to explicitly go "Ugh, typical of women..." when most of the talking points here about Heard being a liar, abuser, mentally ill, manic, manipulative, aggressive, etc., are the same language people use to push the blame on the victim. For some, their hostility to others about Heard being "an actual abuser" (see the person I'm replying above) aren't dissimilar from the incels/MRAs who would pay good money to endlessly push this narrative on their platforms.

But even if you don't believe Heard is innocent, surely it's suspicious that Depp's team spent money on these bad faith actors to do their dirty work?

I think some of the folks expressing hostility are a little pissed because it mirrors their experience - they were abused (maybe by women) and aren't believed because their abuser doesn't look like a typical abuser/claims they were the victim/whatever. And even broken clocks are right once in a while - some people legitimately are abusive mentally-ill liars who make false abuse claims, and Heard might be one of those (very rare) people.

And as for Depp's behaviour - yah, it might be suspicious he sued her for defamation, or pushed social media campaigns, or whatever else - or it could be legitimate. Like if he's the abuser, sure that might check out. But if he's the victim, doesn't it make sense then as well?

# ¿ May 28, 2022 07:20

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

LanceHunter posted:

I got notifications from three different news apps that the verdict was coming in. We're not going to be able to escape ~~the discourse~~ on this one for a while, are we?

Twitter is going to be even more unbearable than usual, regardless how this turns out.

# ¿ Jun 1, 2022 19:24

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

Love the justice system, where the people chosen for juries cannot fill out a two/three page form.

# ¿ Jun 1, 2022 20:05

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

Marshal Prolapse posted:

Don�t forget some sweet rear end Vapes for their doorman.

That dude was so loving cool.

Show me in the lawbook where it says I *can't* vape when testifying, your honor. Checkmate.

# ¿ Jun 1, 2022 20:09

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

STABASS posted:

I still don't understand what this trial is about

mostly poop, have you not been reading this thread?

# ¿ Jun 1, 2022 20:10

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

Cease to Hope posted:

donating over time is normal. she was donating in installments, then stopped when the lawsuit happened. this is what she testified to, even.

I mean, she testified that she had donated it all. Then, when presented with evidence that she hadn't done that, she said she "uses pledge and donate interchangeably" which is not how words work.

# ¿ Jun 2, 2022 18:48

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

Cease to Hope posted:

have you literally never seen anyone take 100 shots for one good selfie? like she's not even claiming they're from two separate incidents

this is what i mean about people believing literally anything except for the pictures of the injuries. how the gently caress do you "um actually" this poo poo

when

like, quote this one for me

Lawyer: "But you hadn't donated your entire seven million dollar settlement to charity at that point, had you?"

Heard: "That's incorrect"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrV7oGPSsjo

# ¿ Jun 2, 2022 18:52

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

Cease to Hope posted:

okay you have that, now quote the part where:

Are you having trouble parsing it?

Lawyer: "But you hadn't donated your entire seven million dollar settlement to charity at that point, had you?"
Heard: "That's incorrect"

I know double negatives are confusing, but she's saying right there "I had donated the entire settlement to charity at that point". She could easily have said, from the beginning, "I pledged to, was in the process of donating in installments and had paid $x, and was then sued so had to put a pause on it" and that would be quite reasonable to most people.

Edit: also, on some tv interview, bolding mine:
In 2018, Heard appeared on Dutch talk show RTL Late Night and said: �$7million in total was donated � I split it between the ACLU and the Children�s Hospital of Los Angeles. I wanted nothing.�

# ¿ Jun 2, 2022 18:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 15:11

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

Anime Bernie Bro posted:

just because amber heard is at least as abusive as depp doesn't mean she isn't innocent of defamation

Yah, from a legal perspective I'm a bit puzzled by this. The three defamatory statements were:

1. Heard "spoke up against sexual violence � and faced our culture's wrath"
2. "two years ago" she became "a public figure representing domestic abuse"
3. She was "seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.

I think those can all be true even if her allegations were fake, no? For 1, that can be true even if her "speaking up" was lying. For 2, she could be the one doing the domestic abuse. For 3, the accusations can be false and institutions will certainly protect the men. Think it would have been smarter for her case to focus on the truth elements of those statements only, not whether they were about Depp or whatever.

# ¿ Jun 2, 2022 19:32

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > The Amber Heard and Johnny Depp trial