celeb news Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard Trial

[Weld_E]

2 minutes ago, Vitaly said:

All the lies thrown at him were terrible!

Can you tell us what those lies were?

[Merlls]

 @suburbannature We are waiting for your specialist review of the decision. You promised all of us that Amber’s win was a matter of time. 

 

[Archetype]

Both abusive losers, love that for them  

Edited June 2, 2022 by Archetype

[Patient Zero]

4 minutes ago, Weld_E said:

You only did so when you get called out. Otherwise, most of your posts were to tear down Amber. Heck, just look at your dp…

How am I “tearing down” Amber by having her as my avatar? The pic is not even edited. 
 

I guess you just see what you want to see. Same goes for my impartiality.
 

Time to touch some grass 

[Weld_E]

1 minute ago, Patient Zero said:

Time to touch some grass 

Time to open a dictionary 

[suburbannature]

10 minutes ago, Merlls said:

 @suburbannature We are waiting for your specialist review of the decision. You promised all of us that Amber’s win was a matter of time. 

 

Actually, I spoke in detail to how victims are often vilified during litigation and abuse criminal cases only result in convictions in an overwhelming minority of cases.

 

Seeing you all deriving joy from someone's pain speaks more about your own emptiness, though.

[HauntinglyHollow]

The fumes in here Thank Amber for ruining these trials for other women, not the judge and jury, should have lied better 

[Clandestine]

This trial was embarrassing for most of the people involved but especially Amber. Before I just knew that she was in Aquaman while now I can add that she's a vindictive liar with seemingly few long-lasting friendships.

[Specter]

Could someone meaningfully (and calmly, if at all possible considering the... passion in this thread) elaborate in detail about how this sets a dangerous legal precedent for other survivors of domestic abuse? 

 

That's truly what I want to know, and the reason I am pursuing this line of inquiry is because I personally believe neither of these two individuals should be turned into a gendered messiah - these two individuals are so deeply flawed and toxic that any "ALL MEN" and "ALL WOMEN" statements stemming from this verdict seem like a lost cause to me, from the get-go. 

 

To that end I (thus far) don't view Amber losing as a loss for all women, but rather just an individualized (albeit highly public) loss for Amber. The same goes for Johnny - though there may be cheering in the MRA streets, his "win" does not magically erase the statistics of convicted Domestic Abusers for me. 

 

However, I am open to changing my mind based on the future implications of this, some of which I already feel are incredibly disappointing. I have long believed that both of them abused each other (to varying degrees) and due to constraints of personal time + the general media NOISE around this, haven't been able to follow as deeply as I would have liked.

 

Also, the Marvelization of what is one of the most unpleasantly public trials about abuse some of y'all cheering as if your favourite footballer just scored a goal have no shame

[Stankonia]

45 minutes ago, suburbannature said:

Actually, I spoke in detail to how victims are often vilified during litigation and abuse criminal cases only result in convictions in an overwhelming minority of cases.

 

Seeing you all deriving joy from someone's pain speaks more about your own emptiness, though.

Drag them king

[Cloröx]

This will be the final nail in the coffin for DC franchise thanks to Amber and Ezra unless they totally remove those actors in the next movies 

[Ice Cream Skies]

6 hours ago, Aria said:

ONTD and /r/deuxmoi are also very pro Amber.

As if y'all needed any more proof you're on the wrong side by being pro-Amber.  There you have it!

 

Those of you who are defending Amber because you blindly "believe all women!" and "believe all victims!" without using or having critical thinking are going to be gooped, victimized and taken advantage of out in the real world. Trust me. I know the thought of that makes you wet, considering you want bans for anyone who doesn't agree with you on this topic, but... It's not too late to consider perspectives outside of emotion-driven echo chambers. They're both morons, but Amber's deranged and extremely manipulative. If you're happy to be used and exploited due to your black/white views of things, so be it, but don't get mad at those of us who've seen through her facade.

[NausAllien]

3 minutes ago, Phantom said:

Could someone meaningfully (and calmly, if at all possible considering the... passion in this thread) elaborate in detail about how this sets a dangerous legal precedent for other survivors of domestic abuse? 

 

That's truly what I want to know, and the reason I am pursuing this line of inquiry is because I personally believe neither of these two individuals should be turned into a gendered messiah - these two individuals are so deeply flawed and toxic that any "ALL MEN" and "ALL WOMEN" statements stemming from this verdict seem like a lost cause to me, from the get-go. 

 

To that end I (thus far) don't view Amber losing as a loss for all women, but rather just an individualized (albeit highly public) loss for Amber. The same goes for Johnny - though there may be cheering in the MRA streets, his "win" does not magically erase the statistics of convicted Domestic Abusers for me. 

 

There are multiple reasons it sets a dangerous precedent:

• Amber's statement were as vague as possible. She didn't mention any specific details about the abuse, and didn't mention the abuse itself, just that she was a person linked to domestic abuse. A lawyer actually went through the op-ed to see if there was anything that could potentially be seen as defamatory and didn't find anything. She also never mentioned Depp's name.
• Amber didn't write the headline, one of the claims that were deemed defamatory. Depp's team tried to argue she "republished" the op-ed with that headline by simply tweeting about it with a link. The judge specifically wrote in the instructions that hyperlinks shouldn't be considered republication, and yet the jury found it to be a case of republication because they claimed she wrote the op-ed.
• Amber had a considerable amount of evidence of multiple forms of abuse, from financial, to destruction of property, to verbal, coercive control, and physical abuse as well. She had text messages, witness testimonies, audio recordings, a video, dozens of pictures, etc. 
• For the jury to consider that she was lying about being abuse they had to either disregard EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE she presented OR consider that somehow her having responded verbally or physically to abuse means she wasn't abused at all.
• Even taken at face value, the statements are ostensibly true. She did become a person representing domestic abuse and she did face our culture's wrath. If writing these factual statements and being extremely vague is enough to be considered liable for defamation, then free speech is totally non-existent.

Think of all the women that don't have 1/3 of the evidence Amber had to support her claims. All they have is their truth, and now they can't even share it publicly or they could face serious repercussions. #MeToo was supposed to help people come forward with allegations, even if they didn't think they had enough evidence to take their accusers to court. The idea was that they would be believed. But after this trial, I think most people will think twice or three times before speaking up because Depp has set the precendent that you can sue them, use a PR firm to get public support, and get a favorable verdict.

 

So no matter how way you look at this whole mess, this verdict is terrible. It's terrible whether you believe Amber's claims or not. It's terrible if you believe people have a right to tell their truth, not naming anyone, being as vague as possible. If you believe free speech exists, then you cannot agree with this verdict.

 

[Homebrand]

3 hours ago, ryanmj1993 said:

This thread shows one thing and that it that a lot of you would fall for anything. Men can be victims of DA just as much as women. She mocked him and told him that he wouldn’t dare tell the world he was a survivor of DA and guess what, HE DID! I totally believed when Amber made her allegations that Depp was guilty. But after reading things and watching the trial it’s SO clear who the abuser is in this situation and it wasn’t Johnny. 
 

The only thing that worries me is that women that have ACTUALLY experienced the abuse that Amber alleges happened, will be afraid to tell their stories. 

I really wanted to support Amber, but I have to admit, once those recordings got exposed (and went viral) it was a means to an end for Ms Heard  some of her testimonies were really hard to watch too. The way the public took that and ran with it though, there was no coming back. 

 

 

[bidet]

39 minutes ago, Ice Cream Skies said:

As if y'all needed any more proof you're on the wrong side by being pro-Amber.  There you have it!

 

Those of you who are defending Amber because you blindly "believe all women!" and "believe all victims!" without using or having critical thinking are going to be gooped, victimized and taken advantage of out in the real world. Trust me. I know the thought of that makes you wet, considering you want bans for anyone who doesn't agree with you on this topic, but... It's not too late to consider perspectives outside of emotion-driven echo chambers. They're both morons, but Amber's deranged and extremely manipulative. If you're happy to be used and exploited due to your black/white views of things, so be it, but don't get mad at those of us who've seen through her facade.

all of this 

[Starkboy]

The fanatism I see on social media on this is disgusting. You all don't know nothing.

 

People are really scary. I'm just happy this whole thong will be forgotten soon

[Ari29]

1 hour ago, NausAllien said:

There are multiple reasons it sets a dangerous precedent:

• Amber's statement were as vague as possible. She didn't mention any specific details about the abuse, and didn't mention the abuse itself, just that she was a person linked to domestic abuse. A lawyer actually went through the op-ed to see if there was anything that could potentially be seen as defamatory and didn't find anything. She also never mentioned Depp's name

 

Not to start an argument, just asking for clarification or a source because I was always under the impression a lawyer from ACLU looked over the op-Ed to make sure it didn’t break the NDA both Amber and Johnny signed not them looking for defamation. 

[Delirious]

1 hour ago, NausAllien said:

There are multiple reasons it sets a dangerous precedent:

• Amber's statement were as vague as possible. She didn't mention any specific details about the abuse, and didn't mention the abuse itself, just that she was a person linked to domestic abuse. A lawyer actually went through the op-ed to see if there was anything that could potentially be seen as defamatory and didn't find anything. She also never mentioned Depp's name.
• Amber didn't write the headline, one of the claims that were deemed defamatory. Depp's team tried to argue she "republished" the op-ed with that headline by simply tweeting about it with a link. The judge specifically wrote in the instructions that hyperlinks shouldn't be considered republication, and yet the jury found it to be a case of republication because they claimed she wrote the op-ed.
• Amber had a considerable amount of evidence of multiple forms of abuse, from financial, to destruction of property, to verbal, coercive control, and physical abuse as well. She had text messages, witness testimonies, audio recordings, a video, dozens of pictures, etc. 
• For the jury to consider that she was lying about being abuse they had to either disregard EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE she presented OR consider that somehow her having responded verbally or physically to abuse means she wasn't abused at all.
• Even taken at face value, the statements are ostensibly true. She did become a person representing domestic abuse and she did face our culture's wrath. If writing these factual statements and being extremely vague is enough to be considered liable for defamation, then free speech is totally non-existent.

Think of all the women that don't have 1/3 of the evidence Amber had to support her claims. All they have is their truth, and now they can't even share it publicly or they could face serious repercussions. #MeToo was supposed to help people come forward with allegations, even if they didn't think they had enough evidence to take their accusers to court. The idea was that they would be believed. But after this trial, I think most people will think twice or three times before speaking up because Depp has set the precendent that you can sue them, use a PR firm to get public support, and get a favorable verdict.

 

So no matter how way you look at this whole mess, this verdict is terrible. It's terrible whether you believe Amber's claims or not. It's terrible if you believe people have a right to tell their truth, not naming anyone, being as vague as possible. If you believe free speech exists, then you cannot agree with this verdict.

 

well said

[Chromatica]

The narcissist lost!  

[Daydream]

It really is only ATRL that is pro-Amber (and yes, “pro-Amber” is exactly the correct phrase as those who are clearly don’t care about truth or justice). Seriously, ANYWHERE else you look, she is getting rightfully lashed. Very curious. Pop music isn’t the only thing a lot of you are out-of-touch on, it seems…

[MARTYN]

Well there we have it! Obviously not a huge shock as the evidence was against her 

[bjorn]

Look at Johnnys insta post and the amount of support.

 

He truly ended miss Heard

[Taylor fanboy]

This will be a classic case where Amber will be avenged when all is said and done.

[Yawn]

4 minutes ago, bjorn said:

Look at Johnnys insta post and the amount of support.

 

He truly ended miss Heard

yep. it’s disturbing 

[東京.]

1 hour ago, Ice Cream Skies said:

As if y'all needed any more proof you're on the wrong side by being pro-Amber.  There you have it!

 

Those of you who are defending Amber because you blindly "believe all women!" and "believe all victims!" without using or having critical thinking are going to be gooped, victimized and taken advantage of out in the real world. Trust me. I know the thought of that makes you wet, considering you want bans for anyone who doesn't agree with you on this topic, but... It's not too late to consider perspectives outside of emotion-driven echo chambers. They're both morons, but Amber's deranged and extremely manipulative. If you're happy to be used and exploited due to your black/white views of things, so be it, but don't get mad at those of us who've seen through her facade.

This  people supporting her I can only imagine are just as deranged and deluded as her, and have never actually seen an ounce of abuse happen in their lives.