Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard

I'm not. Regardless of his guilt or innocence, the discourse has been completely and utterly insufferable and the consequences it's liable to have for how legitimate accusers are treated are not going to be worth it.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I don't know if his history of violence/anger suggests he's capable of beating his wife bloody by repeatedly punching her in the face with a fistful of chunky rings or sexually assaulting her with a vodka bottle. It takes a special kind of sick to do that kind of stuff. There wasn't any evidence of abuse at that level presented in the trial.

I don't think you can draw a line from he trashed a hotel room to he's a wife beater. Same goes with the video of Johnny slamming cabinets (GASP!) that worried Amber so much that she had to do a snarky play by play while it was occurring. I've seen baseball players destroy Gatorade jugs, bat racks, etc. with baseball bats for striking out. It doesn't mean they go home and beat their wife.

As for the paparazzi each encounter is different. There are times where basic decency should override getting the shot. Paparazzi seem to ignore that quite often. For example, if a celeb is with their kids, skip that shot. There was a recent pic put out by the paparazzi of a very attractive 90's actress who has been out of the biz for maybe 2 decades. It was not a flattering pic and was only published to shame her. Whoever took that, if they got beat a little, I'm not shedding a tear. If you go into that line of work, you should expect a little blow-back on occasion. Ask for hazard pay. I can't remember hearing of Depp being as punchy as Alec Baldwin or Sean Penn towards the paparazzi.

What's the "it's" in that last sentence? The consequence what is liable to have? Because it should be "illegitimate accusations." Any harm done here to legitimate accusations is being done by illegitimate ones, not the exposure of them.

Personally, the failure to make that distinction is what I've found most "insufferable" about the discourse. A lot of people seem to care more about using these people's lives as a proxy than about what's actually true in this particular case.

If someone's view of the world is threatened by a just result, perhaps it isn't a particularly well thought out view. When reality turns out to be nuanced and complicated and full of exceptions, the solution isn't to get mad at reality, it's to adjust your worldview to account for that nuance.

It's more to do with the whole thing being treated like a three-ring circus for weeks, if not months, on end and how so much of it read far too much like a popularity contest so the invective just gets far too intense for its own good (and I may be willing to concede there's some horseshoe theory in this regard, especially since there's something so incredibly noxious about trying to spin memes and viral content out of a domestic violence trial because ha ha wouldn't it be funny if he quoted Jack Sparrow when he gets acquitted). I would think this is in itself a degree of nuance that also deserves to be acknowledged when determining what this whole thing has ultimately meant for not just its particulars but the subject at large.

I certainly agree with this. This is basically what I meant by it being used as a proxy, as if Amber Heard represents Women/Accusers, and Johnny Depp represents Men/the Accused. I don't think anybody benefits from trying to use cases like this (let alone this one) as an emblem for larger issues.

I'm happy to have almost totally avoided all the clips and articles going around. The idea of closely following and reacting to all of that seems distasteful.

The memey stuff shows how fundamentally disconnected people are from the events they profess to care about, which is why it's easy to use them as proxies in the first place. If anything it seems to correlate inversely: the less impact a big public thing has on someone's life, the more likely it is to be amplified as a symbol.

I definitely think there is a horseshoe theory thing going on with critics of things (who, duh, criticize it) and defenders of things (who in their zeal to push back create more easily criticizable things) that maybe we can get into at some point, because it seems to map cleanly onto a lot of issues that cut jaggedly across the political spectrum, which means a lot of people notice it in some cases but then turn around and do the same thing in others.

Which thing? The generally unserious social media response?

Basically, yeah.

Right, I already acknowledged in the past paragraph , which you left off for some reason, that despite his last history he has never been accused previously for hitting a woman.

Baseball players smashing things in anger is a reaction to a incident from their previous play is more ti do with them being angry with themselves. Depp slamming cabinets and yelling at Heard isn’t really in the same ballpark (pun not intended). He was clearly annoyed at her, or with something involving her. As I stated, however, she was obviously trying to goad him into a confrontation.

I figured you’d excuse his attack on the paparazzi, and while I agree they do over step their bounds, you miss the point. You mentioned he has no history of violence, and I was pointing out he has, and the reasons for it is irrelevant unless it was in self defense, of which this wasn’t. At no point was I arguing he was a wife better in anyway, in fact, but rather that he he has had a history of violence during the 90’s before he settled down into fatherhood.

Good thread on the actual legal questions at play, and why the evidence was pretty definitive:


This is what actually matters. This should be taking priority over anyone's greater-good-post-hoc rationalizing about wanting a particular outcome which, coincidentally, lines up with their general alignment going into it.

I think that it's possible to be concerned about how this case has impacted the conversation around spousal/domestic abuse without having wanted a different outcome.

I also think that it's possible that a person's concerns about the cultural response to this case and its possible impact on future victims of spousal/domestic abuse might outweigh them feeling good about Depp having been (rightly) "exonerated" of false abuse allegations.

Not knowing much of anything about Heard or Depp going into this all, I had no sense of who was in the wrong or what their situation was. But watching some of the discourse around it has been really disturbing. I can be glad about justice being done and worried at the same time.

Sidenote: one of my students has come into class every day for the last two weeks being like "You know who's really handsome? Johnny Depp." "You know who I wish I could marry? Johnny Depp. I know it would be illegal." So at least for now, Depp has dethroned her other major celebrity crush . . . . Adolph Hitler.

I agree it's possible, but I don't think that's what's usually happening. I think it's mostly indirect critiques and a conspicuous withholding of agreement. This is what people do when there isn't much to argue about, but they still want to find a way to dissent (or reaffirm their general alignment). I imagine a few can't stomach being on the same side of an issue as the kind of people celebrating the loudest, too. Making common cause with them is unacceptable, but disagreeing with the ruling isn't viable either, so we get unfalsifiable speculation and vague implications of dissent.

Basically, it's this:



Maybe, but if so I think that's a mistake, and a potentially damning indictment of the underlying priorities, too.

A worldview that is threatened by a just outcome in a particular case is not a robust one. It's a myopic one that overweights the short-term, concerned more with winning every little cultural fight in front of it even if it hurts its own cause in the long-term. Long-term it should be obvious that truth is better, and any movement serious about protecting the vulnerable and taking victims seriously should want these kinds of accusations exposed.

The obvious analogy, I think, is police corruption. Surely it is "possible" to be "concerned" that when we criticize the police we create distrust with them, incite violence against them, and undermine the rule of law, yes? But anyone actually serious about the integrity of the law should be more zealous, not less, about police corruption, even more than the activists and reformers on the other side.

Did anyone else predict the verdict the way I did: Johnny and Amber both having to pay charges but Amber had to pay more, technically giving Depp the victory? I had a deep sinking feeling they'd both be found "guilty," but any favor would lean to Depp. The entire basis of their relationship is: "You started it!"

For many people--and certainly the people I know who are discussing this case--it's not about a worldview being threatened, it's about being worried about the way that one case/incident can impact a more broad group of people.

My worldview that applies here is that accusations of abuse should be taken seriously and investigated, and that the relative wealth/power/cultural capital of the accused should not have an impact on how seriously those accusations are taken. Depp being judged to be in the right and Heard being exposed as a malicious liar doesn't threaten this worldview at all.

My concern around this case is that many people (not just spouses, but co-workers, children, employees, etc) are reluctant to come forward with accusations because of the relative power of the person they would be accusing. I think that the die-hard support of Depp (before any of the damning details were revealed) during the trial is a potent reminder of what it means to say something unpleasant about a person who is powerful and/or liked. People would have been awful to Heard whether she was in the right or not. When Chris Brown hit Rihannah, I saw numerous comments to the effect of "Well, clearly she said something to make him mad."

Obviously the truth is the most important thing. But sometimes the truth of one incident can draw out broader biases. It's what people might extrapolate from this case and erroneously generalize that is a concern. Two different social workers I know said that the conversation around this case brought back a lot of unpleasant memories of how people treated victims who they (the social workers) were sure had been abused, but with the misfortune to have abusers who were popular and well-liked in their communities.

I think that the complicated emotions here are that people don't want Depp being falsely "convicted", but more the frustration at how this case feeds into the bias that many or most accusations of abuse are manipulation by women.

But, again, I have not been engaging with this trial. I'm only getting glimpses via my students and a handful of friends. I realize that the thoughts I'm hearing from others might be atypical.

I have followed this trial to some degree, via news reports and watching some clips online, but have not thoroughly followed this trial, so my perspective may not be fully informed when compared to someone who followed it more closely. Taking that as a caveat, in a civil trial, preponderance of the evidence is the standard, which means that there is more evidence than not. That is what Johnny Depp had to show to win his defamation claim. That the statements were about him, that they were defamatory, and that they harmed his career prospects, and that they were made with actual malice, by someone who knew they were untrue.

Based on that standard, I think that was shown. In the trial, Amber Heard made very clear that she was talking about Johnny Depp in her op-ed, through her own testimony. If untrue, those allegations were defamatory, and he did lose business after the allegations, based on what was discussed at trial. Absolute truth is a defense to defamation, but the problem with Amber Heard's case is that her allegations were very extreme. She alleged repeated, and quite severe physical abuse, on many different incidents. However, the physical evidence appeared not to show the severity of the abuse that she alleged. She appeared to be able to demonstrate a photo that she had a relatively minor bruise on her face, but the battery she alleged at the level of severity she alleged, would have more likely than not, logically, caused much more significant physical damage. Yet, she never was able to show that, despite her frequently taking photos, videos of herself, documenting Depp destroying cabinets, etc. If this evidence existed, it seems logical given her propensity to frequently be cataloguing her life and their relationship, that she would have documented it. The bruise that she did show appeared to have been photoshopped to appear more red and more severe than it appeared in real life, and photos from the next day did not show the bruise that she had as early as the day before. I think one of the most significant reasons she lost this case is that she accused Depp of sexual battery, using a broken bottle, but there was zero evidence of that, and in keeping with the theme, had Depp done that to her, it is logical that there would have been major physical evidence of that. Yet, she never told any of the people who responded to her allegations, including I think the police, that she was abused, and they did not witness evidence of what she stated on the scene.

In addition, she said that she never tipped off the paparazzi to take a photo of her with the bruise, but the paparazzi photographer stated on the stand that TMZ had a policy that unless they had been tipped off prior to her trial date, and that person was able to confirm she would be there, and there would be something to shoot, that they would not have been there. Only someone with direct knowledge of Heard's activities, and what she would be doing, and how she would be looking, would have been able to provide that confirmation. It's not in Depp's interest to do that, since that would be deleterious to his case that a domestic violence restraining order was not warranted, so it had to either have been Heard, or someone in her inner circle that tipped TMZ off.

She also alleged many things in the case, that in some cases, she said that other witnesses would substantiate, but when they testified, they did not, including medical experts, whoever owned the trailer she said was totally trashed, people she said witnessed the abuse, Kate Moss testified and said no abuse occurred despite Heard claiming or suggesting it did, etc.

Also, Heard's demeanor when she gave her testimony, based on clips that I watched, which may not have been fully representative of her testimony, did not show her in a particularly sympathetic light. She appeared hysterical, in a way which appeared fake, and rehearsed. Domestic violence victims, and many over victims of trauma, usually speak in less of a flowing narrative, more tentatively, more hauntingly, in fits and starts, not always chronologically, they remember fragments of things but not the entire incident completely clearly. Heard didn't present that way. Also, she stated that she didn't want anything from Depp and would be donated the entire 7 million dollar divorce settlement to charity, yet she had 15 months to donate the money, and never did so. This undermines that she was motivated by her desire to be a domestic violence advocate when writing her op-ed and that she was standing up for victims rather than personal gain to either get more money from Depp, or use these claimed incidents to raise her own public profile. Her claim that she did not pay because she was sued by Depp is provably false. Her argument that to pledge a donation is the same thing as actually donating the money also does not make any logical sense and is provably factually untrue. If the commitment is not followed through on, the donation is not made. A promise is not a donation. She still has the money in her bank account to this day.

It is not possible to definitely determine whether Depp ever at some point abused Heard physically during the course of their relationship. That is always possible. I think there was evidence of emotional abuse, but that appeared to be mutual. Since Heard was never able to provide evidence that any of Depp's previous girlfriends substantiated any physical or sexual abuse allegations, it leads me to believe Depp, but it is possible he did at some time. What I think most reasonable people should hopefully be able to agree about is that the allegations Heard made, in this trial, were not proven. That is how the justice system is supposed to work. If allegations are not proven, someone cannot be held liable for them.

I agree with Yoda and others that I wouldn't read too much into this case and that it likely doesn't have major social implications, but I think the reason this may upset some, both who believe Heard, and also, more importantly, some even if they actually may not disagree with the verdict, is because this incident calls into question the wisdom of the believe all women narrative. I think it is right and just to be inclined to believe that a woman has been abused when an allegation is made. I would even support that most women likely are telling the truth, but this incident shows that it is likely not 100% of women, that all claims need to be investigated and evidence provided to support them. If the evidence is not there, it may be logical and reasonable to not believe the claim, and I think that really bothers a lot of people on an emotional level. No man or woman is telling the truth 100% of the time, some do have their own agendas, some people do lie, and I think this case proves that.

i didn’t watch enough of the trial to have a full take, but if we’re sharing twitter threads, these ones have certainly influenced my perspective:

__________________
letterboxd
criticker

I've seen a fair bit of "fake twitter expert" stuff, but "she miscited this case!" sure seems like classic fake debunking stuff. A fig leaf criticism or two to give everyone else permission to not engage with a thing.

But if you're gonna post a thread auditing another, fair's fair: it should be audited, too. One them is literally just the miscite thing (and it even says it's just sort of related, not even wrong), and the other says she basically only mentions Depp's witnesses, which is...yeah, not even close to true. Like "did you even skim the thread?" level false. Then he picks one witness out of a dozen, says he's "D-Tier," and in practically the very next tweet says she's the one cherry-picking. Amazing.

Also, in case it wasn't clear, the point of me posting that was to say "these are the issues which actually matter." The facts and legal standards. So I don't care if she's an "expert," but arguing about this stuff would be a huge improvement on the usual state of affairs. You know, the thing where the same few people send out their contractually obligated signals, and the same other few people send out their supportive ally reps, and all of them demure on having a discussion about this.

There is, of course, always a Twitter thread someone can use to avoid doing legwork or having a discussion. Just as there's always a clickbait headline we can use to confirm our priors ("oh, a study said that? I knew it!").

I agree that worldview is not threatened, but the worldview I'm talking about is this hypothetical one you floated (emphasis added):

That hypothetical person is, I think, having their worldview threatened, because they believe the case to be a net negative. Which is tantamount to saying the truth matters less than this short-term win.

It also clearly poses a problem for simplistic overcorrecting slogans like #BelieveAllWomen. This ties into the horseshoe theory thing I alluded to above, where sometimes the biggest threats to any reform movement are the ostensible supporters, who think their support must be total and unwavering, when in reality it's like the police corruption thing: they should care about the missteps and misapplications of their beliefs even more than their critics.

These are all descriptions of possible downsides, yes, but I haven't disputed such downsides exist. I'm only speaking to the mindset that would either prefer a different outcome to avoid them or (more common) hedge and hem and haw and imply the same without really saying it.

That the long-term integrity of any idea may have short-term setbacks is, I think, pretty universal. Might even be inherent to the reform process.

How on earth do you know this?

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

It's interesting to note that the jury has weighed in and not just given the award to Depp, but hit Heard with a 5 million dollar penalty, even though the legal cap is 350K. A commentator who actually IS a lawyer, unlike me, said that, even though the jury knew that the penalty was capped, they wanted to make a statement. Unlike us, they actually knew the details and sat through the testimony, so that seems a lot more conclusive than the multitudes of people who were not there and came to the case with a preconceptions and fixed attitudes of how it should play out.

I disagree with this characterization.

You can believe that the truth is very important and still think that overall this case is a net negative.

Here is an example: something happened at our school that involved theft. We figured out who did it, and it was the only Hispanic child in our entire grade. A co-worker of mine asked who had committed the theft, I said it was [student], and she responded, "Of course it was. He's . . . . " *significant head nod at the child*. She means because he is Hispanic.

Now, is the truth (finding out who stole) the most important thing? Yes. But I can be sad about the outcome because for my co-worker it clearly reinforced her bias that Hispanic people are thieves or whatever. This bias she has is something that has the potential to impact many students in the future. I think that this incident was a net negative for the children at our school (and specifically the non-white children), even if the truth prevailed.

The phrase "net" literally means taking into account all different impacts of the case. And because we cannot quantify many of the impacts (men feeling empowered to fight back against false accusations; people who would make false accusations realizing the gravity of it; abuse victims being more reluctant to make accusations; etc), whether the case is a net negative or not is mainly going to depend on each person's perception of the magnitude of those factors.

The slogan is meant to be "believe women", and what it's arguing is that the default mode is to believe people who make accusations of abuse. Which, based on statistics, makes the most sense.

I get that there are some people out there who don't want to believe that false accusations exist, but I really don't think they are any kind of majority, even among my most liberal-leaning friends. (I have never known anyone who said "believe all women", just "believe women"). Just like there are people who think that most abuse allegations are false, but they are also not a majority.

I don't think it's about wanting a different outcome, it's wanting a different situation. You have this televised, memed-to-death court case pushing a case of false abuse allegations to the forefront. I think there's a big difference between "I wish he'd lost his case" and "I wish this wasn't happening."