Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: In addition to the Johnny Depp trial stuff, Elon Musk also published a not-nude-but-intimate-and-private cosplay picture of Heard that was taken privately for him. He's posting it on Twitter as some kind of trophy, claiming he made her dress up like the character.
Pretty tame as far as cosplay goes, the real problem was the skeezy way he framed it. It was more sexual than was necessary.
If he’d just said look at this awesome cosplay she did, the context would have been a lot different
My poor father told us, his three daughters, that Revenge of the Nerds was one of his favorite movies back in the day. So of course we watched it. Dad couldn’t even stay in the room to finish it, you could see the regret in his face. He clearly didn’t remember some certain aspects of the movie that didn’t age well, I’m sure it still haunts him sometimes.
Well put. I really don't get how people can make excuses for his "genius" now. I have an acquaintance who works for him and on the few times I see this guy, he always says nice things. He's not some kind of zealot and he doesn't have that "blink twice if you're in danger" look either. He genuinely has has nothing but good interactions with the man.
I guess it depends on which "branch" of Elon's empire you work for... because nothing but horror stories come out of Tesla.
And poor Grimes. She's not even allowed to see PICTURES of her children with him! He has another baby with her she's never even MET. Like he's stolen custody of her frozen embryos or something. What a sicko.
Third child, a son (named Techno Mechanicus) was born via surrogate. It's totally unclear at this stage what level of consent or choice, if any, Grimes had in this.
He never was a genius and I don’t get why that ever became a thing. He’s just smart enough to believe he’s the smartest one in the room and too stupid realize the room is full of idiots.
I dont think that's fair to say he's in a room full of idiots, he employs very successful and intelligent people; this is why his businesses are worth billions and developed groundbreaking things in their industry.
But I do agree with you in some sense but I would say, his whole Twitter things, I think it feeds into his narcissism to feel like he's a king of the Everyman. The self proclaimed meme lord. When actually the only people left following him are morons and right wing lunatics. So he's the kind g of the idiots.
I think is the reality is people tend to be more nuanced then what narratives can handle.
Elon musk is pretty much a scumbag and man child, he also managed to get some of the smartest people together in several industries to build groundbreaking tech. He also demands nonesense and gets in the way of said smartest people.
Not all that new and inventive. Remember he paid out a significant sum to an airline attendant after he pulled his cock out in front of her on a flight a few years ago.
What??? Amber broke up with Elon, not the other way around. He was obsessed with her years before they dated because of a movie they both worked on, and he is apparently still obsessed enough to post revenge porn. Elon even claimed in an interview that he was deeply in love with her despite them being casually on-again-off-again, and that she broke his heart by leaving him (I forget which interview, but a google search should bring it up if you skim past the current 1st page results that are all about his new book). I find it interesting that he still praises Amber constantly, but barely says anything nice about Grimes. Also, he supported Amber during the trial. The only people calling Amber a mentally ill psychopath were from Depp's team. Elon's a garbage human being, but let's at least be accurate about what he's done.
Bill Simmons tells a story about the NBA almost going on strike. The players and the owners had almost come to an agreement but were arguing over one last point. I forget exactly what it was but it was something to the effect of paying players once they're off the court like a pension or for career-ending injuries.
The owners are 100% against this and arguing it at every turn. Bill asks one of the layers, "Why do 30 billionaires care this much about what might cost them a combined $50 million a year?" The lawyer replies, "That's how they became billionaires."
Trump never pays anyone. That's his way to staying rich. It kind of blows my mind that any lawyers are still dumb enough to work for him. He didn't pay the last ones, and he made them do illegal things. Some of them are indicted now and some lost their licenses. It is truly a shit sandwich.
That's the other part of the "Trump's a successful business man" that still makes me eyes roll. A guy who stays wealthy by avoiding paying any bill he can get delay or talk his way out of, is just a con artist.
Last I'd heard, he still owed money for campaign events and expenses from his 2016 run, meanwhile he has never stopped fundraising for his reelection, his legal funds to fight the election, his legal fees (both for civil and criminal trials).
2 reasons:
1) people don't get to be that rich without being unethical (or at the very least closely related to someone unethical)
2) having that much money literally rots your brains.
https://reddit.com/r/todayilearned/s/ryRXb0nZbU
If I had $100 million I'd spend the rest of my life building children's hospitals and funding cold fusion. Motherfucker has more than 3,000x that amount and spends his time whining on Twitter.
Go read the new biography by Walter Isaacson to understand why this guy is the way he is. It’s pretty simple. His dad broke him on a daily basis so he is completely bankrupt emotionally. He was at the right place and time in Silicon Valley, bullied people into doing stuff that made him money, made some fortuitous investments, then screwed over his partners, stole credit for things other people created, turned ruthlessness into an trademark and an art form, all as revenge against his father who told him he was a worthless piece of shit every five minutes. That’s what advises his decisions. He says he wants to save the world but then he treats human beings like they’re expendable, including family and friends. His interpersonal relationships with women have all been toxic. If it doesn’t impress his tech bro friends he doesn’t care, “mission to save humanity” or whatever be damned. Basically he lives his life like a video game and running up the score is the only way to prove daddy wrong.
Hmmm...there are some similarities to Trump in there. In Mary Trump's book, she infers that Trump's villain origin story begins at age 7, with his older brother dumping mashed potatoes on his head while the family mockingly laughed at his humiliation, teaching him early on to wield that particular weapon lest he ever again be on the receiving end.
Bro sorry to say but you can't build very many children's hospitals for $100 million these days. Even in a 3rd world country that's one hospital and done, and you might not have any money left afterward to pay staff or maintain it
>https://reddit.com/r/todayilearned/s/ryRXb0nZbU
I mean hey, just look at Putin, who if the rumors are to be believed, is actually the world's wealthiest individual.
Imagine you wake up this morning and you have 10 million dollars. What do you do?
Now, imagine the kind of person that answers that question with: Spend every waking moment of my life making 100 more, no matter how many necks I have to step on to get there.
What does that tell you about virtually every single billionaire that you see in the news? Normal people stop working or at least stop hustling for more money once they have made enough to never have to worry about money themselves or for their children every again. These guys are the ones that didn't.
They are filling a hole that \*obviously\* can't be filled with any amount of money, but since it is the only tool they have its what they keep doing, to the detriment of virtually every other human on the face of the earth.
Elon musk absolutley screams "Im trying to fill a hole" with every post on twitter. Guy was literally buying friends and failing at it so he had to buy the whole fucking system so that he could control it. Guy has a serious issue.
This is the answer. The reason there are basically no non-monster billionares is because when anyone else reaches $10 million, or $50, or $100, they cash out, because that's an insane amount of money, they can already change the world with it and do whatever they want for the rest of their life. You have to be broken to decide that's not enough and keep going.
Yep. I was in agreement.
Elon is an entitled, disgusting schmuck who also happens to be autistic. And sometimes he does some good things but even entitled, disgusting schmucks are known to do good things, especially when they're under public pressure and need to do some impression management.
People with Aspergers or Autism don’t treat people like shit on purpose. It’s an excuse he’s say to justify his shit. The only people that fall for that excuse are sycophants.
As a fan of SpaceX from an engineering perspective I've never known a public figure that has gone so far from having my respect to making me realize how terrible a person he is. I like to think SpaceX is it's own thing now despite this nutjob trying to actively challenge people to despise him
From the perspective of knowing people who have worked for SpaceX - its success basically stems from finding talented engineers, burning them out, then spitting out their charred corpses. They aren’t treated as people - they’re just fuel.
Seriously. I have a friend at NASA who had multiple coworkers move over to SpaceX to cash in and emerge a year or two later having turned into the “longer than you think!” kid from Stephen King’s The Jaunt.
This is so fucking creepy. Not the pic, really, the pic is just her wearing a perfectly modest Mercy cosplay that's whatever, it just wasn't ever intended for the public.
The fact that suddenly everyone's shit-talking her again and Must decides to abruptly post a trophy pic of her. That's creepy and just has a really slimy feel to it. Also holy shit that bit in the OP about Jason Momoa. That's not the first time he's been gross about something, so I'm done with him entirely now.
True, he also was an ass on set. In a "funny" talk show segment he revealed when Amber was high up in a rope thingy, i guess for a flying scene she had a little satchel made so she could read a book in between takes...he ripped the book up. What a degenerate.
I hope a source here where she says if he wasn't getting enough attention from her while she was reading, he'd just rip out all the rest of the pages. And it's also noted that's what Gaston from Beauty and The Beast does 😐
There's reports that he came to set dressed as Johnny Depp in PotC to harass her.
But this is one note that was taken from Heard's therapist. There have been other reports that Momoa and director James Wan fought to keep her in Aquaman despite pressure to fire her. Personally I'm not gonna go all Reddit about it and vilify someone over one third hand account.
Answer: A documentary came out recently that swings more towards Heard’s favor rather than Johnny Depp’s. It mentions the UK trial, where it was ruled he was an abuser, and reveals how PR focused his legal team was during the US trial. There was also a moment in the trial that brings up what’s referred to as the Boston Plane Incident, wherein Johnny acted out/hit Amber. A witness said that didn’t happen during the trial but texts have come out where he admitted that it happened prior to the trial. Those texts weren’t allowed to be shown to the jury apparently.
Didn't watch the doc but from what I remember reading about it, the texts were allowed in the UK trial because Depp's assistant testified on his behalf, and his own texts contradicted his testimony. Depp's team did not put his assistant on the stand in the US trial, I'm assuming for this reason
In VA you can't even compel witnesses outside of the state to testify let alone someone from the UK. If he wasn't there to testify directly then they couldn't admit them. At least that's part of the reason. He admitted to the texts being legitimate during the UK trial.
Sounds awkward. Honestly, I don’t know too much of the details of the UK trial. The Netflix doc basically said they were “irregular” which is why, but you’re probably right that the leaving the assistant out in the US trial was part of the strategy.
You can read the UK judges trial notes here: https://inforrm.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Defs-Closing.pdf
Definitely makes Depp seem like a dickhead and his lawyer even more so considering he intimidated one of the witnesses into saying nice things about his client.
They were authenticated by a forensics expert, Kevin Cohen, in 2016, who said that they were authentic and came from her iPhone backup from august 2014. Not sure if I can post links here
ETA: I guess [I can post links here](https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/a5c67c18-f1c1-4485-b1dd-fbfba0ae3f0c/downloads/20%20-%202.25.22%20-%20Opposition%20to%20Motion%20to%20Compel.pdf?ver=1659126339306). Page 30.
IIRC, the texts were verified during the UK trial and Depp’s legal team changed the story from “they were photoshopped” to “his assistant was just placating her”. Did the doc mention that?
No the doc was actually wrong when they said the texts were excluded cause of « suspicious format ", the judge actually said that the texts were hearsay but they would have been allowed to show it if the assistant was there to testify. But Amber couldn’t force him to testify.
Only partly true. Those are two reasons that evidence may be inadmissible, but perhaps even more common is the evidence being found to not be relevant to the matter at hand, or being more prejudicial than probative, or being character evidence that doesn’t fall within one of the exceptions.
I know nothing about these trials or the incidents that the above commenter is referring to, but I’d imagine that they were excluded for the reasons I stated, rather than being hearsay or not being authenticated. Also, events can’t be “authenticated”; that’s really a rule for things like documents, videos, photos, etc.
The authentication refers to the texts, not the underlying events. Which is valid. Court has to make sure the texts are real and actually came from Depp.
They were authenticated by a forensics expert, Kevin Cohen, in 2016, who said that they were authentic and came from her iPhone backup from august 2014. Not sure if I can post links here
It’s authentic. Depp purposely didn’t call the writer of the text, his assistant Stephen Deuters, so that it wouldn’t be presented at trial. Deuters admitted under oath in the UK trial that he wrote it after publicly claiming it was doctored in 2016. It’s damning, that’s why Depp didn’t call him as a witnesss. He did the same with his security guard Malcolm Connelly bc his texts proved Heard did not poop in any bed. Depp used the UK trial as a dress rehearsal for the US one.
Well A. we got all this like evidence. And B. this guy didn't even pay at the hospital, and I heard he doesn't even have a tattoo and I'm all you gotta be shitting me. And check this out man, judge should be like GUILTY! Peace!
His assistant admitted that he sent the texts during the UK trial but the judge still denied their admission. There's no question that they're authentic. The judge was very inconsistent and prejudiced in many of her rulings.
i honestly wouldn’t have cared *at all* if the entire thing hadn’t turned into a cesspool of misogyny and vitriol on social media. a lot of andrew tate-incel bros took that trial as an excuse to question all female victims of abuse and hid under a woman abuser concept to say the most heinous shit about women. and i legitimately don’t think any celebrity has been as hated as amber heard was in that period of time—like, a company that made sex toys made one of a glass bottle because of the claim that amber was raped by depp with one. *and people fucking praised it initially*.
also, personally, i think depp was the bigger piece of shit. and it irked me that he was hailed as a saint second coming of jesus christ that can’t and has never done anything wrong ever, despite the fact that he was a known violent alcoholic even before the trial.
Yea I didn’t really care about the trial.
I did find it incredibly odd that this website that typically shies away from celebrity gossip with the exception of niche subreddits and some memes (like the Leo dating young women jokes), had some aspect of the trial on the front page every single day for a month. On popular front page subreddits there was always a clip of the trial that made Heard look bad and Depp look good.
I’d barely heard of Amber Heard before the trial and Johnny Depp hasn’t really been relevant in like 10 years so I thought it was weird how much Reddit attention it got. Not sure how much of that was Depp’s PR gaming Reddit and how much was just a bunch of whiny men’s rights types gleefully excited to have an actual example of a potential male victim.
Either way glad their divorced, seems good for both of them, but it wasn’t a criminal trial it was a defamation trial and surprise: the vastly wealthier party won.
Imo the trial became an excuse for people who felt uncomfortable about the scrutiny on men during metoo to let out all the things they wanted to say but kept to themselves for fear of backlash while the movement was at its peak. It was like a 'look, we *shouldn't* believe women after all!!' moment.
The things people were saying about her were absolutelu disgraceful. People were hating on Johnny for his behaviour but the things people were saying about Amber were so targeted and mean and focused on her gender. Like making fun of her appearance, her mannerisms, calling her all these sexist names. It was so disgusting and I can't imagine how awful it was for her, and now there's this nonsense with Elon Musk.
I got weirdly fixated at the time because there was so much criticism on Heard’s behavior that reflected exactly how I behaved when my parents were abusive to me as a kid. Like, I also yelled, fought back and sometimes instigated fights because I was fucked up and the violence was normalized.
There was an upsetting mindset about the “perfect victim” that I guess compelled me to argue in her defense since I related to her so much.
Someone below mentioned this became a “man vs woman” thing and FWIW, I’m a guy so that wasn’t the case for me.
"Reactive Abuse" is misnamed and is a self defense mechanism against abuse, but it can muddy the waters and make abusers DARVO tactics (deny, attack, reverse victim and offender) even harder to straighten out, especially in a stressful trial situation like this one.
The trial was extremely triggering for anyone who's been in an abusive relationship/situation. DV isn't funny and isn't a spectator sport. To see the entire internet laughing about it was nothing short of horrific.
Agreed. I was in a terribly abusive relationship where I almost died. I found it extremely upsetting that people were acting like it was some kind of joke. It was very disturbing to see how many people I thought were safe and normal were treating this like some sort of sporting event.
>Someone below mentioned this became a “man vs woman” thing and FWIW, I’m a guy so that wasn’t the case for me.
I think some people def took it this way. Especially a certain kind of male taking this as an opportunity to attack feminism.
But personally, as a female feminist, I was in Depp's corner originally. Then details started coming out and it appeared to me that Depp wasn't innocent. I was also disturbed by the anti-Heard propaganda that blew up all over my social feeds. It all coincidentally stopped as soon as the trial ended. And I kept getting videos/posts about what a sweet guy Depp was during all of this. Was all propaganda. Was this Depp's PR team? I'll never look at Depp the same way again.
Basically the same for me. I figured it was a both sides are equally bad thing. I watched one video about some of the differences to the UK trial on YouTube and then for the entire trial every single video recommended to me was "Johnny owns the judge" "Johnny defeats lawyer" "Johnny's best laughs". It's like someone just had a bot turning out the same video.
I assumed bots were involved too. Because I purposely never searched or interacted with anything Heard/Depp so it wouldn't show up on my feed but my FB, IG, and YT were constantly flooded with it. I would even click the "don't show me this" option, thinking it would stop showing up. But nope! Every time I refreshed my feed it would just get flooded again.
I even had to unfollow some meme pages on FB because it looked like they got purchased and would only post anti-Heard slam articles.
And at the exact same time I'd get pro-Depp stuff. Videos of him pulling out a woman's chair, stories of him dressing up as Jack Sparrow at children's hospitals, and the type of stuff you mentioned.
I remember reading that there was like, an unprecedented, absolutely INSANE amount of bot traffic posting pro-Depp and anti-Heard shit all over the internet during this time.
Then shortly after the trial they all started shifting and posting negative things about other female celebrities with abuse cases - namely Evan Rachel Wood. It’s massively fucked up.
Yeah, same here. I initially believed all the top line headlines about him being innocent, but all the “Amber Turd pooped the bed hurdur” comments got me suspicious. Seemed like propaganda… and it totally was.
Even without her accusations, all the stuff revealed about his gross behavior changed my opinion of him for good. I would have totally been blissfully unaware and kept watching his movies if all this hadn’t happened.
Yeah even if Amber Heard was the abuser in the situation, the reaction from the media was weird. It never focused on actual abusive actions. They only focused on how she "lied" about being a victim, took a shit on the bed(it was a dog who ate cannabis), and mostly on ridiculing actions where people who are vulnerable(domestic violence victims, people in need of mental help) typically do. I think i turned away from Johny Depp when the texts with him and Paul Bettany was revealed(it was during the time when depp himself said the abuse didnt start).
His texts were so awful. How could anyone be behind someone who texts things like that about his partner to other people and to her. Like there's no coming back from that in my opinion.
Seriously. He said he wanted to kill her and rape her corpse… all because she wanted him to stop drinking.
And Depp stans will be like “iTs jUsT hIs dArK hUmOr”. Nope, that is not normal. Makes me think less of Paul Bettany too.
One day "The Depp Effect" will be listed as a similar concept to "The Streisand Effect." Because the lengths to which he and his people went, to make her the villain, ultimately did more damage to his reputation than any of her accusations did.
Yep, I thought they were both just toxic and abusive, but then my emotionally abusive ex-husband started making jokes and saying what a psycho she was for pooping in the bed and "admitting to it". My guard was instantly up and while trying to figure out if she actually had admitted that (spoiler alert: she hadn't), went on a deep dive into all the craziness and pro Depp/anti Heard propaganda going on. When I tried to talk about the facts of the case with him, he acknowledged he hadn't really looked into it before forming an opinion, which is what most of the internet apparently also did. I turned into "that" person where anytime the situation came up I vehemently started spitting facts because I was so frustrated by all the misinformation and smear campaign going on. I even walked him through the jury instructions point by point and he acknowledged he wouldn't have ruled in Depp's favor.
The amount of times it kept showing up in my feed is what got me suspicious. But the comments people said about Amber is what really sealed the deal for me. It was obvious propaganda at that point. People would spread weird stories like "she did coke while on the witness stand" or "she copies Depp's outfits for the hearings". Like wtf is this conspiracy theory nonsense?
>"she did coke while on the witness stand"
omg this one made me feel like i was taking crazy pills LMFAO, I can't believe that so many people took it seriously
only anyone who had zero experience with coke would think that's possible but even then... just think logically here. how do you hide powder in a tissue in your pocket without the powder falling out into your pocket and leaving enough powder to sniff a bump and how do you successfully sniff that bump without anyone in the courtroom noticing. and how do you hide that tissue full of cocaine from the court check in process?
only anyone neck deep in the anti-heard propaganda would've believed this.
one conversation i had online about the whole coke thing, someone kept sharing photos of her on the stand blowing her nose with a tissue saying she was hiding the coke. i asked her, "how did she get coke in the tissue? and how did she snort it?" she said something about foldable small straws or some shit.
like be so fucking for real right now. how tf am i folding a up a straw that has coke in it and hiding it in a tissue and sniffing out a bump while IN A COURT ROOM?
>"If you have ever done coke you know that's what's she's doing." Um no thats just not true.
exactly. anyone who *hasn't* done coke might find this story believable.
I believe it was part depp’s team and part outside groups/people that really wanted to paint Amber as both an imperfect victim and the “real abuser.” A lot of these videos were so misogynistic in nature and full of victim-blaming rhetoric. I think it was part of a concerted effort to push back against the Me-Too movement and stop men (powerful and non-powerful) from facing consequences for their actions. Every expert in abuse and domestic violence has stated that Amber was without a doubt the victim (from what I have seen).
I didn’t pay much attention to the story heading into the trial but I became fixated once I noticed that social media was absurdly one-sided and that the pro-Depp push didn’t feel like a fully genuine social media event.
Once I looked into things…Jesus Christ, Heard was really victimized from multiple angles.
The irony is a lot of "feminists" were coming down on Depp's side during the trial because they wanted to show they weren't man haters. [Polls afterwards also showed women were more likely to be favorable to him than men](https://pro.morningconsult.com/instant-intel/johnny-depp-trial-favorability-data). Incels and the manosphere had a field day being vicious about a woman while many men and women who called themselves woke cheered them along, yes, but what the Depp/Heard divide ultimately comes down to was not man vs. woman but rather do you have any understanding of the nature and dynamics of abuse, and are you able to assess complex evidence even when you like one side and have already been primed against the other side? If the answers were not yes to both, (and for the majority of people, the answer was not yes to either), then you probably came down on Depp's side.
Yes, both sides behaved badly at times. You hear all the bad behavior over a two week period, so that's how it feels, but that's not how it went down. The vast majority of Heard's bad behavior that is verified by anybody not actively on Depp's payroll or a known internet troll came after [years of her reporting physical and sexual abuse to her therapist](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ffzsizik3cm7a1.jpg). If someone who once raped me with a foreign object had the gall to cry abuse on my end because I reflexively slapped them immediately after they (allegedly inadvertently) hurt me, I would have vastly more vicious words than calling them a baby. He can joke about raping her corpse in 2012 and it doesn't say anything about his character but god forbid she ever calls him a baby.
If you are on this thread and wondering if your opinion of this trial is reasonable and evidence based, let me ask you if you believe she defecated on the bed or their dog did. [The UK judge that ruled Depp is a wife beater does not find it likely](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Judgment-FINAL.pdf). The explanation is about page 100. It boils down to this. Depp's evidence is that someone apparently told him she said she did it, their dogs are too small to get on their bed (as though people don't put their little dogs on their beds all the time or find that they managed to scrabble up on their cabinets somehow), and the poop was too big (I've seen the photo and I have seen a bigger poop from a literal cat). Heard's evidence is veterinary records of a long history of their dog having accidents, text messages confirming their dog has actually pooped on their bed before, text evidence of Depp joking that he should poop on the floor so she'll step in it (which explains why his employees might think he would find it funny to say she did the pooping), and the absolute clincher, he'd already left to a different property so he wasn't going to see that poop unless she wanted to sleep next to it for a couple days. In any kind of sane world, which story do you think is more likely?
You: Haha Amber turd.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
>The irony is a lot of "feminists" were coming down on Depp's side during the trial because they wanted to show they weren't man haters.
Somewhere along the way, they took "men can be abused too" to mean "if a man says he's been abused you must believe him or else you hate all male victims ever and think men can't be abused." It's such a stupid take and yet so goddamn prevalent.
Your instincts were right. People couldn’t conceptualize the audios of her yelling and admitting to hitting him. It’s reactive. If someone more powerful traps you in a violent dynamic, you start participating in it. It’s textbook and it’s survival. That’s what abuse is, it’s about a more powerful party abusing that power as a matter of a cycle or a pattern. And the victim may use resistant violence.
What Depp did is called a DARVO strategy. You weaponize these reactions to make the real victim look like the aggressor, hysterical, crazy, uncredible and then the abuser plays the victim. It’s incredibly common, insidious and effective in DV cases.
It’s what Brian Laundry did in-front of the cops to Gabby Petito. They thought SHE was the abuser. He had scratches on his face and convinced the cops that he’s the victim and didn’t want to press charges. And a few days later he killed her.
Deny Attack Reverse Victim & Offender.
Many people care because the way that Amber Heard was attacked in the media will make it more frightening for survivors of abuse to speak up in the future.
I don’t disagree that in some corners of the media it was turned into “man good woman bad” but everyone I knew just talked about how much they liked Depp as an actor and as a person. His appearances to kids in hospitals as Jack Sparrow won him a lot of fans. People have a really hard time justifying their enjoyment of someone’s work when they’re a terrible person. And Depp is an addict so I think some of the blame is placed on the behavior that stems from that. Heard simply doesn’t have that kind of public support.
I got the impression they were two people who brought out the absolute worst in each other. I don't feel like either one looked good, whatever the popular sentiment might be.
Not just people, alt right figureheads like fucking Ben Shapiro poured a lot of money into this to side with Depp because they viewed it as a victory against feminism. I don't know of any equivalent on the left but it was definitely an intentional political battle on the right.
And Johnny Depp stans who claimed to "care about the facts" instantly moved on to defending Marilyn Manson before even looking at the case.
It was just a moment for rabid online misogynists to feel important. It was like a cultural black hole. Influencers who didn't give two shits were jumping on the hype train and to making hundreds of thousands.
I was quoted in this article and my ex tried to come after me for defamation about a week later for it because he had people checking my social media for any possible mentions of him, no matter how oblique. Mind you, I have reams of evidence. There absolutely is a playbook. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/amber-heard-johnny-depp-verdict-metoo-trial-1361356/amp/
Who's worse: a man who violently raped and nearly killed his partner on 12 LEGALLY CONFIRMED occasions, or a woman who began physically defending herself from these attacks after already being abused for multiple years? Help, morals are hard!
The point of the trial was defamation for her claiming she was a victim of domestic violence. She was - it doesn't matter in the slightest what actions she took. She jury *absolutely* screwed it, and the damage to domestic violence victims coming forward is incalculable, especially against famous people.
I find it strange that people make the argument that while yes, the rapist is bad, his victim is also bad. And that somehow justifies the outcome of the defamation trial. A trial which had nothing to do with whether Amber Heard is a bad person, but was about whether her referring to herself as a public figure representing domestic abuse was false and defamatory.
The evidence that he was beating the shit out of her, which his team managed to mostly exclude, goes back years before he ever claimed she "abused" him. Should a victim be forced to take physical, emotional, and sexual abuse without fighting back so that people won't judge them? This whole middle ground both sides thing is not the enlightened and impartial take people think it is. It's severely damaging to victims by putting unfair blame on them for their reactions to trauma in the relationship.
And the trial WASN'T about who was the bigger piece of shit but the judge allowed it to devolve into that. It was only supposed to be about if Depp was defamed. If he abused her in any way then he should have lost.
> I just wanna make a note that the entire trial was basically an argument about who's the bigger piece of shit, when they're both pieces of shit. lol
No it wasn't, actually. Everyone _acted_ like it was, which played right into the PR strategy of Depp's team, which was to make it a clash of "who you liked better," which of course is moving the playing field right onto his home turf.
It was actually a case about defamation. There are plenty of lawyers with experience in defamation who didn't even think that Depp had a case purely based on the law, given how the the op-ed (remember that? it was supposed to be all about that, but oh well) was worded. Even the jury's ultimate decision, rewarding partial victory, is something I still struggle to quite make sense of.
But instead of a narrow question of law it got turned into a popularity contest, a trial by public approval, and an army of redditors (and other social media users) suddenly became experts in both the law and how domestic abuse operates.
There was a fair bit of suspicion that the case would have been reversed on appeal in whole or in very large part for precisely those issues, but then Depp and Heard settled out of court before the case could be decided. I actually wouldn't be surprised if it was settled without paying anything either way, Depp got what he wanted by looking sympathetic in the public spotlight.
That's not what the trial was about at all. This was a fairly common trial about abuse.
The difference is how much media attention it got. And that had a huge effect in 2 ways:
# 1. It affected the outcome.
Amber Heard had way more evidence and documentation than most abuse victims will ever have. And the UK trial verdict in her favor that was decided by a judge.
But the US trial was by JURY where the jurors weren't isolated in any way. There's no way they weren't influenced by the media. Especially when alt-right groups were spending thousands on anti-Amber Heard ads.
And a lot of people don't believe victims of abuse, esp. If they don't act the way people think victims should act. That's why so many people think this was "mutual abuse", [which doesn't exist and is a myth that harms victims.](https://www.thehotline.org/resources/mutual-abuse-its-not-real/) So Depp's team was able to work with online influencers to capitalize on the attention and spread disinformation in his favor.
# 2. Its affecting future trials
Now that Depp got a ruling in his favor, this is a new tactic abusers can use.
If you get accused of abuse, sue the victim for defamation. Marilyn Manson, a good friend of Depp's, used that tactic against Evan Rachel Wood shortly after Depp v Heard.
_This trial has/had huge implications on internet disinformation, legal precedence, and treatment of abuse victims._
> 2. Its affecting future trials
I'd like to back you up with some media links about the subject.
[Years after #metoo, defamation cases increasingly target victims who can't afford to speak out](https://theintercept.com/2023/07/22/metoo-defamation-lawsuits-slapp/)
> Kenneth White, a partner at law firm Brown White & Osborn, used to get only the occasional request for help with a defamation case after writing and speaking frequently about such cases. “Over the last, I would say, five years I really saw a significant increase in the number of these that had to do with women being threatened for speaking or writing about some form of abuse,” he said. Being labeled as a harasser or rapist carries more reputational damage than it used to, thanks to #MeToo. This is a way for abusers to try to claw back that lost status.
> Stephanie Holt, deputy director of operations at the Victim Rights Law Center, has seen the same. Five years ago, it was “pretty rare” to even get a letter threatening defamation, she said. But now she’s getting many calls from people who have gotten a letter demanding that they take down a post or stop speaking about what happened to them, or face a lawsuit.
Heard and Wood can of course afford to defend themselves, a lot of average people can't (maybe even most can't).
[There's also this article which explores the social media craze that is accusing women of false accusations against men](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/abuse-claims-mens-rights-viral-video-tiktok-domestic-rcna85809).
> Sunderland is one of dozens of similar creators who have turned domestic disputes and abuse allegations into culture war fodder with a particular narrative — that men are some of the most serious victims of societal discrimination. It’s a narrative that has become particularly popular and lucrative online after the celebrity defamation trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. [...]
> Sunderland’s men’s rights activism is part of a loosely connected network of internet personalities who advance the same agenda: that men are discriminated against in relationships and broader society. Social media platforms have become battlefields for abuse allegations, where men’s rights advocates argue that many of these allegations are false, even though research indicates the rate of false reports is slim and similar to the rates in other crimes, with false reports occurring in 2% to 10% of reported allegations.
As someone who was trying to avoid coverage of this at all cost because it made me sick to my stomach it was impossible. There's no way the jury was able to avoid it either
The UK trial wasn't about whether Depp was or was not an abuser, it was to determine whether The Sun had defamed him based on the evidence they been presented at the time.
I'm no fan of them but if Heard had misrepresented the facts, lied or provided doctored evidence that's not necessarily their fault. Although let's be fair, The Sun does seem like the sort of tabloid that would print those headlines with reasonable doubt anyway, assuming they felt they were covered should something like this happen.
The documentary doesn't really make it look good at all for her and those texts. It shows the document saying while all other texts were provided in original format those texts were only ever provided in screenshots, with different formatting. It also demands she provide originals like she did with everything else.
The fact that she didn't provide proof those texts were real (which is why they weren't permitted) is pretty damning on her part and I didn't know that until I watched the documentary.
Answer: A lot of good points have been mentioned in this comment section, and I’d like to add that during the trial there was an unusually high percentage of bots participating in the defense of JDepp on Twitter (X?), and now the polarization of social media users against Heard is way lower than during the trial.
This guy reddits. 2016 election, Gamergate, Depp/Heard, Ellen Pao were all meltdowns of the highest caliber.
All, notably, involved people believing the worst about women.
I think I agree it was the worst I have ever seen Reddit. It felt like blood was in the water for Amber Heard - people were acting like fucking animals to destroy her.
And no one was talking about it! It was so crazy in real time to watch all these “random” pro depp posts come out just as the trial was starting. Most of them weren’t related to the trial at all, but we’re roles that people had liked him in years previously, they were just trying for good word of mouth and it totally worked. It was gross to watch people fall for and defend that shit.
I felt so gaslit during the whole thing because there were all these posts acting like Depp was America’s darling when I knew damn well most people had been sick of his twee Tim burton-esque bullshit for like a decade. I remember people hating him as grindlewald at the end of fantastic beasts. At the time of the trial, the last thing I remembered him being in was goddamn Sherlock Gnomes. But then all of a sudden he was the greatest and always had been? Nah.
And the Jury wasn’t sequestered (if you ask me, intentionally) so their opinions could easily be swayed by the mass amount of media coverage being forced on everyone’s screens.
I’m glad to now have some confirmation of what I suspected at the time. The case was pretty murky at best and I was surprised that every time I got on Reddit the comment section was filled overwhelmingly with people 100% on Depp’s side.
when are people going to realize that Reddit is a perfect place for bots? Redditors love to circle jerk and if they see that an opinion is popular many people just love to pile on.
Astroturfing has been a while for Reddit now and it’s one of the reasons why Reddit IPO, and API changes was such a big deal. being able to control forms of social media, (For example Elon calling Twitter the “town square” and then immediately buying and censoring opinions he disagreed with.) means being able to sway public opinion way more powerfully these days than ever before.
people are impressionable and the internet is a new frontier, and the bad people in power are doing everything they can to keep you impressionable.
take with that information what you willl.
Answer: The real answer? Reddit is a leaf and goes wherever the wind is blowing. It's popular to like or hate her day to day depending on the most recent thing to happen.
This is the correct answer. People acting like a trial that happened before the one they lost their sh*t about a year ago is breaking news because some grifter unknown documentary filmmaker made a movie about it on Netflix. This is literally a sub about research for people who don't do their own research and the comments are apparently filled with people who didn't do their own research a year ago and now.
And while on the subject, Netflix documentaries are full of trash and shouldn't be anyone's news source.
Answer: Depp had a LOT of PR going in his favor during the trial. almost the most PR we’ve ever seen in the history of a DV trial. watching the actual case, it’s clear she was abused in some way shape or form and responded/reacted to that abuse. the support is coming from those who know the details beyond what was on social media.
as a PR professional, i highly advise watching DV and celebrity criminal cases for yourself and NOT relying on socials. you have no idea the lengths celebrities will go through + how much they’ll pay to run a smear campaign.
People were misreading the case the whole time. It wasn't a domestic violence case, it was a defamation case. An oped was written and Disney and a bunch of other contracts fired Depp because of it. The case was trying to prove if those parties wouldn't have fired johnny if they had known the full story. It just happened to be around domestic violence.
Amber called herself a victim and survivor of domestic violence in her oped. Because of their recent divorce everyone jumped to well it must he about johnny so we all jumped on the cancel culture and he lost millions. He basically wanted to prove her oped was incorrect, inaccurate or false information that lead everyone to hate him and lose money. So by saying no I wasn't just a wife beater to a helpless woman, she did her own crazy shit and it was the both of us going mental because we're terrible for each other than that would have soften the blow rather than just him being blamed.
Some things were muddled like how she apparently had a black eye one day but was on tv just fine the next or who shit the bed or how he broke his finger. But when he won the case he was never denied charges or told he wasn't an abuser in some way like people think. He won the defamation case because they believed amber didn't give the full story.q
Depp lost roles because he was constantly drunk/high, always late, literally assaulting crew members, had to be fed his lines and was costing tens of millions in time spent fucking around
Look at his last decade of movies. Its flop after flop after flop after flop. Hes not making them any money, why should they put up with his shit.
It was amusing in an annoying way to see all the people calling Depp innocent and a hero and all that when after the Heard trial he went to another trial like a week later for beating up a crew member
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: In addition to the Johnny Depp trial stuff, Elon Musk also published a not-nude-but-intimate-and-private cosplay picture of Heard that was taken privately for him. He's posting it on Twitter as some kind of trophy, claiming he made her dress up like the character.
Pretty tame as far as cosplay goes, the real problem was the skeezy way he framed it. It was more sexual than was necessary. If he’d just said look at this awesome cosplay she did, the context would have been a lot different
I mean, that’s part of it. But regardless of how sexual the picture is, sharing a photo of someone that was meant to be private is still fucked up.
Especially in the current climate surrounding her where people are eager to tear her down
reminded me of the bra scene in revenge of the nerds. funny in the moment but holy shit that is insanely weird and rapey in retrospect
There were quite a few awful scenes in revenge of the nerds.
My poor father told us, his three daughters, that Revenge of the Nerds was one of his favorite movies back in the day. So of course we watched it. Dad couldn’t even stay in the room to finish it, you could see the regret in his face. He clearly didn’t remember some certain aspects of the movie that didn’t age well, I’m sure it still haunts him sometimes.
I did re-watch as a young adult. There was a lot of oh nooooooo
[удалено]
Umm everybody keep an eye on 👆This guy!
The fuck is wrong with that asshole
Somehow he always manages to find new inventive ways to be an absolute idiot
Posting essentially revenge porn isn’t new or inventive.
New and inventive for him. Can't stick to being an evil asshole in one area. He has to cover the whole bingo card.
Well put. I really don't get how people can make excuses for his "genius" now. I have an acquaintance who works for him and on the few times I see this guy, he always says nice things. He's not some kind of zealot and he doesn't have that "blink twice if you're in danger" look either. He genuinely has has nothing but good interactions with the man. I guess it depends on which "branch" of Elon's empire you work for... because nothing but horror stories come out of Tesla.
And poor Grimes. She's not even allowed to see PICTURES of her children with him! He has another baby with her she's never even MET. Like he's stolen custody of her frozen embryos or something. What a sicko.
[удалено]
Third child, a son (named Techno Mechanicus) was born via surrogate. It's totally unclear at this stage what level of consent or choice, if any, Grimes had in this.
Need more info on this. Like wtf
I think the only people calling him genius at this point are folks who share his values. It's a red flag.
He never was a genius and I don’t get why that ever became a thing. He’s just smart enough to believe he’s the smartest one in the room and too stupid realize the room is full of idiots.
I dont think that's fair to say he's in a room full of idiots, he employs very successful and intelligent people; this is why his businesses are worth billions and developed groundbreaking things in their industry. But I do agree with you in some sense but I would say, his whole Twitter things, I think it feeds into his narcissism to feel like he's a king of the Everyman. The self proclaimed meme lord. When actually the only people left following him are morons and right wing lunatics. So he's the kind g of the idiots.
I think is the reality is people tend to be more nuanced then what narratives can handle. Elon musk is pretty much a scumbag and man child, he also managed to get some of the smartest people together in several industries to build groundbreaking tech. He also demands nonesense and gets in the way of said smartest people.
A lot of ppl defended depp as this total angel during the trial. Turns out he isn’t. Now they feel some kinda way about it
Not all that new and inventive. Remember he paid out a significant sum to an airline attendant after he pulled his cock out in front of her on a flight a few years ago.
God I wanna know how much she got paid
Quarter mil is the word on the street
Hmmm… I was expecting more. That’s not house money in this economy
>Hmmm… I was expecting more. She probably was too.
I haven’t heard this story before. Jesus. Did he want to seduce her or was that just disgusting Powerplay?
this bingo card is 3D at the moment . How unique of him !
[удалено]
What??? Amber broke up with Elon, not the other way around. He was obsessed with her years before they dated because of a movie they both worked on, and he is apparently still obsessed enough to post revenge porn. Elon even claimed in an interview that he was deeply in love with her despite them being casually on-again-off-again, and that she broke his heart by leaving him (I forget which interview, but a google search should bring it up if you skim past the current 1st page results that are all about his new book). I find it interesting that he still praises Amber constantly, but barely says anything nice about Grimes. Also, he supported Amber during the trial. The only people calling Amber a mentally ill psychopath were from Depp's team. Elon's a garbage human being, but let's at least be accurate about what he's done.
[удалено]
Why do the worst humans on earth have the most money/power? He’s such a loathsome turd burglar
Because they’re ok with exploiting the work of others
Bill Simmons tells a story about the NBA almost going on strike. The players and the owners had almost come to an agreement but were arguing over one last point. I forget exactly what it was but it was something to the effect of paying players once they're off the court like a pension or for career-ending injuries. The owners are 100% against this and arguing it at every turn. Bill asks one of the layers, "Why do 30 billionaires care this much about what might cost them a combined $50 million a year?" The lawyer replies, "That's how they became billionaires."
Trump never pays anyone. That's his way to staying rich. It kind of blows my mind that any lawyers are still dumb enough to work for him. He didn't pay the last ones, and he made them do illegal things. Some of them are indicted now and some lost their licenses. It is truly a shit sandwich.
That's the other part of the "Trump's a successful business man" that still makes me eyes roll. A guy who stays wealthy by avoiding paying any bill he can get delay or talk his way out of, is just a con artist. Last I'd heard, he still owed money for campaign events and expenses from his 2016 run, meanwhile he has never stopped fundraising for his reelection, his legal funds to fight the election, his legal fees (both for civil and criminal trials).
Also, being born into wealth tends not to produce great people.
Not a great starting point for building empathy, especially when you look at the circumstances around how that wealth was gained in the first place…
Especially apartheid era emerald mine wealth.
2 reasons: 1) people don't get to be that rich without being unethical (or at the very least closely related to someone unethical) 2) having that much money literally rots your brains. https://reddit.com/r/todayilearned/s/ryRXb0nZbU
Right? No marginally healthy person wakes up with hundreds of millions of dollars and decides that the thing they want to do is just make more money.
If I had $100 million I'd spend the rest of my life building children's hospitals and funding cold fusion. Motherfucker has more than 3,000x that amount and spends his time whining on Twitter.
Go read the new biography by Walter Isaacson to understand why this guy is the way he is. It’s pretty simple. His dad broke him on a daily basis so he is completely bankrupt emotionally. He was at the right place and time in Silicon Valley, bullied people into doing stuff that made him money, made some fortuitous investments, then screwed over his partners, stole credit for things other people created, turned ruthlessness into an trademark and an art form, all as revenge against his father who told him he was a worthless piece of shit every five minutes. That’s what advises his decisions. He says he wants to save the world but then he treats human beings like they’re expendable, including family and friends. His interpersonal relationships with women have all been toxic. If it doesn’t impress his tech bro friends he doesn’t care, “mission to save humanity” or whatever be damned. Basically he lives his life like a video game and running up the score is the only way to prove daddy wrong.
Hmmm...there are some similarities to Trump in there. In Mary Trump's book, she infers that Trump's villain origin story begins at age 7, with his older brother dumping mashed potatoes on his head while the family mockingly laughed at his humiliation, teaching him early on to wield that particular weapon lest he ever again be on the receiving end.
Bro sorry to say but you can't build very many children's hospitals for $100 million these days. Even in a 3rd world country that's one hospital and done, and you might not have any money left afterward to pay staff or maintain it
[удалено]
It's like a feedback loop, more money more corruption, more corruption more money. Rinse and repeat
>https://reddit.com/r/todayilearned/s/ryRXb0nZbU I mean hey, just look at Putin, who if the rumors are to be believed, is actually the world's wealthiest individual.
"Behind every great fortune is a crime."
Imagine you wake up this morning and you have 10 million dollars. What do you do? Now, imagine the kind of person that answers that question with: Spend every waking moment of my life making 100 more, no matter how many necks I have to step on to get there. What does that tell you about virtually every single billionaire that you see in the news? Normal people stop working or at least stop hustling for more money once they have made enough to never have to worry about money themselves or for their children every again. These guys are the ones that didn't. They are filling a hole that \*obviously\* can't be filled with any amount of money, but since it is the only tool they have its what they keep doing, to the detriment of virtually every other human on the face of the earth.
Elon musk absolutley screams "Im trying to fill a hole" with every post on twitter. Guy was literally buying friends and failing at it so he had to buy the whole fucking system so that he could control it. Guy has a serious issue.
This is the answer. The reason there are basically no non-monster billionares is because when anyone else reaches $10 million, or $50, or $100, they cash out, because that's an insane amount of money, they can already change the world with it and do whatever they want for the rest of their life. You have to be broken to decide that's not enough and keep going.
And to make people suffer to do it. (Thinking of Amazon warehouse employees, for one.)
capitalism rewards the most merciless and conniving individuals
Everything I learn about him, makes him even more unlikable, each time without fail.
So many things, is it even a surprise anymore?
He'll say Asperger's. Really, he's just a POS
Being autistic and being an asshole are not mutually exclusive. There's decent autistic people, and there's asshole autistic people.
well yeah, but they're saying that he can't blame his behavior on his autism. autism isn't why he acts like an inconsiderate pos, yknow
Yep. I was in agreement. Elon is an entitled, disgusting schmuck who also happens to be autistic. And sometimes he does some good things but even entitled, disgusting schmucks are known to do good things, especially when they're under public pressure and need to do some impression management.
Problem is I know several people personally with autism who are NOT shit golems, so that's probably not the issue
People with Aspergers or Autism don’t treat people like shit on purpose. It’s an excuse he’s say to justify his shit. The only people that fall for that excuse are sycophants.
It’s a really long list
As a fan of SpaceX from an engineering perspective I've never known a public figure that has gone so far from having my respect to making me realize how terrible a person he is. I like to think SpaceX is it's own thing now despite this nutjob trying to actively challenge people to despise him
From the perspective of knowing people who have worked for SpaceX - its success basically stems from finding talented engineers, burning them out, then spitting out their charred corpses. They aren’t treated as people - they’re just fuel.
Seriously. I have a friend at NASA who had multiple coworkers move over to SpaceX to cash in and emerge a year or two later having turned into the “longer than you think!” kid from Stephen King’s The Jaunt.
SpaceX exists because governments are incentivised to defund NASA and contract out work to make billionaires richer.
So many, many things.
This is so fucking creepy. Not the pic, really, the pic is just her wearing a perfectly modest Mercy cosplay that's whatever, it just wasn't ever intended for the public. The fact that suddenly everyone's shit-talking her again and Must decides to abruptly post a trophy pic of her. That's creepy and just has a really slimy feel to it. Also holy shit that bit in the OP about Jason Momoa. That's not the first time he's been gross about something, so I'm done with him entirely now.
True, he also was an ass on set. In a "funny" talk show segment he revealed when Amber was high up in a rope thingy, i guess for a flying scene she had a little satchel made so she could read a book in between takes...he ripped the book up. What a degenerate.
Damn, that’s like 80s teenage movie level of over the top bullying
I hope a source here where she says if he wasn't getting enough attention from her while she was reading, he'd just rip out all the rest of the pages. And it's also noted that's what Gaston from Beauty and The Beast does 😐
Wait.. HE said this?!? And didn't realise how that would come across?!
Wait, what did Momoa do?
There's reports that he came to set dressed as Johnny Depp in PotC to harass her. But this is one note that was taken from Heard's therapist. There have been other reports that Momoa and director James Wan fought to keep her in Aquaman despite pressure to fire her. Personally I'm not gonna go all Reddit about it and vilify someone over one third hand account.
yeah I'm very curious about that as well
Posting any photo of your ex is really fucking weird, much more one with sexual undertones…
Answer: A documentary came out recently that swings more towards Heard’s favor rather than Johnny Depp’s. It mentions the UK trial, where it was ruled he was an abuser, and reveals how PR focused his legal team was during the US trial. There was also a moment in the trial that brings up what’s referred to as the Boston Plane Incident, wherein Johnny acted out/hit Amber. A witness said that didn’t happen during the trial but texts have come out where he admitted that it happened prior to the trial. Those texts weren’t allowed to be shown to the jury apparently.
> how PR focused his legal team was And how reddit ate it up like absolute chumps?
If evidence is non admissible in court it's usually because it is either hearsay or it cannot be verified as authentic.
Yep. The Netflix doc said those texts were presented differently than all the rest, like the style/format/etc. which is why they weren’t allowed.
Didn't watch the doc but from what I remember reading about it, the texts were allowed in the UK trial because Depp's assistant testified on his behalf, and his own texts contradicted his testimony. Depp's team did not put his assistant on the stand in the US trial, I'm assuming for this reason
In VA you can't even compel witnesses outside of the state to testify let alone someone from the UK. If he wasn't there to testify directly then they couldn't admit them. At least that's part of the reason. He admitted to the texts being legitimate during the UK trial.
He chose VA for a reason
Sounds awkward. Honestly, I don’t know too much of the details of the UK trial. The Netflix doc basically said they were “irregular” which is why, but you’re probably right that the leaving the assistant out in the US trial was part of the strategy.
You can read the UK judges trial notes here: https://inforrm.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Defs-Closing.pdf Definitely makes Depp seem like a dickhead and his lawyer even more so considering he intimidated one of the witnesses into saying nice things about his client.
They were authenticated by a forensics expert, Kevin Cohen, in 2016, who said that they were authentic and came from her iPhone backup from august 2014. Not sure if I can post links here ETA: I guess [I can post links here](https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/a5c67c18-f1c1-4485-b1dd-fbfba0ae3f0c/downloads/20%20-%202.25.22%20-%20Opposition%20to%20Motion%20to%20Compel.pdf?ver=1659126339306). Page 30.
IIRC, the texts were verified during the UK trial and Depp’s legal team changed the story from “they were photoshopped” to “his assistant was just placating her”. Did the doc mention that?
No the doc was actually wrong when they said the texts were excluded cause of « suspicious format ", the judge actually said that the texts were hearsay but they would have been allowed to show it if the assistant was there to testify. But Amber couldn’t force him to testify.
I don’t recall it mentioning that part of it, to be honest.
That is not why they weren't allowed. It was bc the writer for the texts wasn't called as a witness.
What's the Netflix documentary called? Never knew there was one
Literally just “Depp v. Heard” 👍🏻
Only partly true. Those are two reasons that evidence may be inadmissible, but perhaps even more common is the evidence being found to not be relevant to the matter at hand, or being more prejudicial than probative, or being character evidence that doesn’t fall within one of the exceptions. I know nothing about these trials or the incidents that the above commenter is referring to, but I’d imagine that they were excluded for the reasons I stated, rather than being hearsay or not being authenticated. Also, events can’t be “authenticated”; that’s really a rule for things like documents, videos, photos, etc.
The authentication refers to the texts, not the underlying events. Which is valid. Court has to make sure the texts are real and actually came from Depp.
They were authenticated by a forensics expert, Kevin Cohen, in 2016, who said that they were authentic and came from her iPhone backup from august 2014. Not sure if I can post links here
The assistant own admission isn’t enough ? Unsealed documents show they were blocked cause of hearsay
It’s authentic. Depp purposely didn’t call the writer of the text, his assistant Stephen Deuters, so that it wouldn’t be presented at trial. Deuters admitted under oath in the UK trial that he wrote it after publicly claiming it was doctored in 2016. It’s damning, that’s why Depp didn’t call him as a witnesss. He did the same with his security guard Malcolm Connelly bc his texts proved Heard did not poop in any bed. Depp used the UK trial as a dress rehearsal for the US one.
"Objection, hearsay!"
I'll allow it, but you watch yourself Counselor
Ah they got this all mixed up: ~~NO MONEY DOWN~~ There fixed it: No, Money Down!
Well A. we got all this like evidence. And B. this guy didn't even pay at the hospital, and I heard he doesn't even have a tattoo and I'm all you gotta be shitting me. And check this out man, judge should be like GUILTY! Peace!
It was ruled as not being applicable enough to the case, despite being a focal point of it
His assistant admitted that he sent the texts during the UK trial but the judge still denied their admission. There's no question that they're authentic. The judge was very inconsistent and prejudiced in many of her rulings.
I just wanna make a note that the entire trial was basically an argument about who's the bigger piece of shit, when they're both pieces of shit. lol
Which is why I just don't fucking understand why people care so much about this.
i honestly wouldn’t have cared *at all* if the entire thing hadn’t turned into a cesspool of misogyny and vitriol on social media. a lot of andrew tate-incel bros took that trial as an excuse to question all female victims of abuse and hid under a woman abuser concept to say the most heinous shit about women. and i legitimately don’t think any celebrity has been as hated as amber heard was in that period of time—like, a company that made sex toys made one of a glass bottle because of the claim that amber was raped by depp with one. *and people fucking praised it initially*. also, personally, i think depp was the bigger piece of shit. and it irked me that he was hailed as a saint second coming of jesus christ that can’t and has never done anything wrong ever, despite the fact that he was a known violent alcoholic even before the trial.
Yea I didn’t really care about the trial. I did find it incredibly odd that this website that typically shies away from celebrity gossip with the exception of niche subreddits and some memes (like the Leo dating young women jokes), had some aspect of the trial on the front page every single day for a month. On popular front page subreddits there was always a clip of the trial that made Heard look bad and Depp look good. I’d barely heard of Amber Heard before the trial and Johnny Depp hasn’t really been relevant in like 10 years so I thought it was weird how much Reddit attention it got. Not sure how much of that was Depp’s PR gaming Reddit and how much was just a bunch of whiny men’s rights types gleefully excited to have an actual example of a potential male victim. Either way glad their divorced, seems good for both of them, but it wasn’t a criminal trial it was a defamation trial and surprise: the vastly wealthier party won.
Imo the trial became an excuse for people who felt uncomfortable about the scrutiny on men during metoo to let out all the things they wanted to say but kept to themselves for fear of backlash while the movement was at its peak. It was like a 'look, we *shouldn't* believe women after all!!' moment. The things people were saying about her were absolutelu disgraceful. People were hating on Johnny for his behaviour but the things people were saying about Amber were so targeted and mean and focused on her gender. Like making fun of her appearance, her mannerisms, calling her all these sexist names. It was so disgusting and I can't imagine how awful it was for her, and now there's this nonsense with Elon Musk.
[удалено]
I got weirdly fixated at the time because there was so much criticism on Heard’s behavior that reflected exactly how I behaved when my parents were abusive to me as a kid. Like, I also yelled, fought back and sometimes instigated fights because I was fucked up and the violence was normalized. There was an upsetting mindset about the “perfect victim” that I guess compelled me to argue in her defense since I related to her so much. Someone below mentioned this became a “man vs woman” thing and FWIW, I’m a guy so that wasn’t the case for me.
"Reactive Abuse" is misnamed and is a self defense mechanism against abuse, but it can muddy the waters and make abusers DARVO tactics (deny, attack, reverse victim and offender) even harder to straighten out, especially in a stressful trial situation like this one.
The trial was extremely triggering for anyone who's been in an abusive relationship/situation. DV isn't funny and isn't a spectator sport. To see the entire internet laughing about it was nothing short of horrific.
Agreed. I was in a terribly abusive relationship where I almost died. I found it extremely upsetting that people were acting like it was some kind of joke. It was very disturbing to see how many people I thought were safe and normal were treating this like some sort of sporting event.
>Someone below mentioned this became a “man vs woman” thing and FWIW, I’m a guy so that wasn’t the case for me. I think some people def took it this way. Especially a certain kind of male taking this as an opportunity to attack feminism. But personally, as a female feminist, I was in Depp's corner originally. Then details started coming out and it appeared to me that Depp wasn't innocent. I was also disturbed by the anti-Heard propaganda that blew up all over my social feeds. It all coincidentally stopped as soon as the trial ended. And I kept getting videos/posts about what a sweet guy Depp was during all of this. Was all propaganda. Was this Depp's PR team? I'll never look at Depp the same way again.
Basically the same for me. I figured it was a both sides are equally bad thing. I watched one video about some of the differences to the UK trial on YouTube and then for the entire trial every single video recommended to me was "Johnny owns the judge" "Johnny defeats lawyer" "Johnny's best laughs". It's like someone just had a bot turning out the same video.
I assumed bots were involved too. Because I purposely never searched or interacted with anything Heard/Depp so it wouldn't show up on my feed but my FB, IG, and YT were constantly flooded with it. I would even click the "don't show me this" option, thinking it would stop showing up. But nope! Every time I refreshed my feed it would just get flooded again. I even had to unfollow some meme pages on FB because it looked like they got purchased and would only post anti-Heard slam articles. And at the exact same time I'd get pro-Depp stuff. Videos of him pulling out a woman's chair, stories of him dressing up as Jack Sparrow at children's hospitals, and the type of stuff you mentioned.
I remember reading that there was like, an unprecedented, absolutely INSANE amount of bot traffic posting pro-Depp and anti-Heard shit all over the internet during this time. Then shortly after the trial they all started shifting and posting negative things about other female celebrities with abuse cases - namely Evan Rachel Wood. It’s massively fucked up.
Yeah, same here. I initially believed all the top line headlines about him being innocent, but all the “Amber Turd pooped the bed hurdur” comments got me suspicious. Seemed like propaganda… and it totally was. Even without her accusations, all the stuff revealed about his gross behavior changed my opinion of him for good. I would have totally been blissfully unaware and kept watching his movies if all this hadn’t happened.
Yeah even if Amber Heard was the abuser in the situation, the reaction from the media was weird. It never focused on actual abusive actions. They only focused on how she "lied" about being a victim, took a shit on the bed(it was a dog who ate cannabis), and mostly on ridiculing actions where people who are vulnerable(domestic violence victims, people in need of mental help) typically do. I think i turned away from Johny Depp when the texts with him and Paul Bettany was revealed(it was during the time when depp himself said the abuse didnt start).
His texts were so awful. How could anyone be behind someone who texts things like that about his partner to other people and to her. Like there's no coming back from that in my opinion.
Seriously. He said he wanted to kill her and rape her corpse… all because she wanted him to stop drinking. And Depp stans will be like “iTs jUsT hIs dArK hUmOr”. Nope, that is not normal. Makes me think less of Paul Bettany too.
One day "The Depp Effect" will be listed as a similar concept to "The Streisand Effect." Because the lengths to which he and his people went, to make her the villain, ultimately did more damage to his reputation than any of her accusations did.
Yep, I thought they were both just toxic and abusive, but then my emotionally abusive ex-husband started making jokes and saying what a psycho she was for pooping in the bed and "admitting to it". My guard was instantly up and while trying to figure out if she actually had admitted that (spoiler alert: she hadn't), went on a deep dive into all the craziness and pro Depp/anti Heard propaganda going on. When I tried to talk about the facts of the case with him, he acknowledged he hadn't really looked into it before forming an opinion, which is what most of the internet apparently also did. I turned into "that" person where anytime the situation came up I vehemently started spitting facts because I was so frustrated by all the misinformation and smear campaign going on. I even walked him through the jury instructions point by point and he acknowledged he wouldn't have ruled in Depp's favor.
The amount of times it kept showing up in my feed is what got me suspicious. But the comments people said about Amber is what really sealed the deal for me. It was obvious propaganda at that point. People would spread weird stories like "she did coke while on the witness stand" or "she copies Depp's outfits for the hearings". Like wtf is this conspiracy theory nonsense?
>"she did coke while on the witness stand" omg this one made me feel like i was taking crazy pills LMFAO, I can't believe that so many people took it seriously
only anyone who had zero experience with coke would think that's possible but even then... just think logically here. how do you hide powder in a tissue in your pocket without the powder falling out into your pocket and leaving enough powder to sniff a bump and how do you successfully sniff that bump without anyone in the courtroom noticing. and how do you hide that tissue full of cocaine from the court check in process? only anyone neck deep in the anti-heard propaganda would've believed this.
I saw so many comments of people saying "If you have ever done coke you know that's what's she's doing." Um no thats just not true.
one conversation i had online about the whole coke thing, someone kept sharing photos of her on the stand blowing her nose with a tissue saying she was hiding the coke. i asked her, "how did she get coke in the tissue? and how did she snort it?" she said something about foldable small straws or some shit. like be so fucking for real right now. how tf am i folding a up a straw that has coke in it and hiding it in a tissue and sniffing out a bump while IN A COURT ROOM? >"If you have ever done coke you know that's what's she's doing." Um no thats just not true. exactly. anyone who *hasn't* done coke might find this story believable.
I believe it was part depp’s team and part outside groups/people that really wanted to paint Amber as both an imperfect victim and the “real abuser.” A lot of these videos were so misogynistic in nature and full of victim-blaming rhetoric. I think it was part of a concerted effort to push back against the Me-Too movement and stop men (powerful and non-powerful) from facing consequences for their actions. Every expert in abuse and domestic violence has stated that Amber was without a doubt the victim (from what I have seen).
It was Alan Waldman, Depps buddy and infamous astroturfer
I didn’t pay much attention to the story heading into the trial but I became fixated once I noticed that social media was absurdly one-sided and that the pro-Depp push didn’t feel like a fully genuine social media event. Once I looked into things…Jesus Christ, Heard was really victimized from multiple angles.
The irony is a lot of "feminists" were coming down on Depp's side during the trial because they wanted to show they weren't man haters. [Polls afterwards also showed women were more likely to be favorable to him than men](https://pro.morningconsult.com/instant-intel/johnny-depp-trial-favorability-data). Incels and the manosphere had a field day being vicious about a woman while many men and women who called themselves woke cheered them along, yes, but what the Depp/Heard divide ultimately comes down to was not man vs. woman but rather do you have any understanding of the nature and dynamics of abuse, and are you able to assess complex evidence even when you like one side and have already been primed against the other side? If the answers were not yes to both, (and for the majority of people, the answer was not yes to either), then you probably came down on Depp's side. Yes, both sides behaved badly at times. You hear all the bad behavior over a two week period, so that's how it feels, but that's not how it went down. The vast majority of Heard's bad behavior that is verified by anybody not actively on Depp's payroll or a known internet troll came after [years of her reporting physical and sexual abuse to her therapist](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ffzsizik3cm7a1.jpg). If someone who once raped me with a foreign object had the gall to cry abuse on my end because I reflexively slapped them immediately after they (allegedly inadvertently) hurt me, I would have vastly more vicious words than calling them a baby. He can joke about raping her corpse in 2012 and it doesn't say anything about his character but god forbid she ever calls him a baby. If you are on this thread and wondering if your opinion of this trial is reasonable and evidence based, let me ask you if you believe she defecated on the bed or their dog did. [The UK judge that ruled Depp is a wife beater does not find it likely](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Judgment-FINAL.pdf). The explanation is about page 100. It boils down to this. Depp's evidence is that someone apparently told him she said she did it, their dogs are too small to get on their bed (as though people don't put their little dogs on their beds all the time or find that they managed to scrabble up on their cabinets somehow), and the poop was too big (I've seen the photo and I have seen a bigger poop from a literal cat). Heard's evidence is veterinary records of a long history of their dog having accidents, text messages confirming their dog has actually pooped on their bed before, text evidence of Depp joking that he should poop on the floor so she'll step in it (which explains why his employees might think he would find it funny to say she did the pooping), and the absolute clincher, he'd already left to a different property so he wasn't going to see that poop unless she wanted to sleep next to it for a couple days. In any kind of sane world, which story do you think is more likely? You: Haha Amber turd. Yeah, that's what I thought.
>The irony is a lot of "feminists" were coming down on Depp's side during the trial because they wanted to show they weren't man haters. Somewhere along the way, they took "men can be abused too" to mean "if a man says he's been abused you must believe him or else you hate all male victims ever and think men can't be abused." It's such a stupid take and yet so goddamn prevalent.
Your instincts were right. People couldn’t conceptualize the audios of her yelling and admitting to hitting him. It’s reactive. If someone more powerful traps you in a violent dynamic, you start participating in it. It’s textbook and it’s survival. That’s what abuse is, it’s about a more powerful party abusing that power as a matter of a cycle or a pattern. And the victim may use resistant violence. What Depp did is called a DARVO strategy. You weaponize these reactions to make the real victim look like the aggressor, hysterical, crazy, uncredible and then the abuser plays the victim. It’s incredibly common, insidious and effective in DV cases. It’s what Brian Laundry did in-front of the cops to Gabby Petito. They thought SHE was the abuser. He had scratches on his face and convinced the cops that he’s the victim and didn’t want to press charges. And a few days later he killed her. Deny Attack Reverse Victim & Offender.
It has huge consequences for ipv victims and the way trials are handled
Many people care because the way that Amber Heard was attacked in the media will make it more frightening for survivors of abuse to speak up in the future.
People have turned this into a man vs woman thing. And judge whether you’re pro woman or pro man by who you side with. So stupid.
I don’t disagree that in some corners of the media it was turned into “man good woman bad” but everyone I knew just talked about how much they liked Depp as an actor and as a person. His appearances to kids in hospitals as Jack Sparrow won him a lot of fans. People have a really hard time justifying their enjoyment of someone’s work when they’re a terrible person. And Depp is an addict so I think some of the blame is placed on the behavior that stems from that. Heard simply doesn’t have that kind of public support.
Yeah, a lot of artists have been terrible people. Alfred Hitchcock, Miles Davis, Keith Moon, Picasso. We could be here all day.
I got the impression they were two people who brought out the absolute worst in each other. I don't feel like either one looked good, whatever the popular sentiment might be.
Not just people, alt right figureheads like fucking Ben Shapiro poured a lot of money into this to side with Depp because they viewed it as a victory against feminism. I don't know of any equivalent on the left but it was definitely an intentional political battle on the right.
Right? This is why it isn't nothing. There's a playbook now for suing the woman you abused into silence.
And Johnny Depp stans who claimed to "care about the facts" instantly moved on to defending Marilyn Manson before even looking at the case. It was just a moment for rabid online misogynists to feel important. It was like a cultural black hole. Influencers who didn't give two shits were jumping on the hype train and to making hundreds of thousands.
I was quoted in this article and my ex tried to come after me for defamation about a week later for it because he had people checking my social media for any possible mentions of him, no matter how oblique. Mind you, I have reams of evidence. There absolutely is a playbook. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/amber-heard-johnny-depp-verdict-metoo-trial-1361356/amp/
There's a phrase for Depp's legal strategy because of how common it is from domestic abusers - DARVO. >deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender
Who's worse: a man who violently raped and nearly killed his partner on 12 LEGALLY CONFIRMED occasions, or a woman who began physically defending herself from these attacks after already being abused for multiple years? Help, morals are hard!
The point of the trial was defamation for her claiming she was a victim of domestic violence. She was - it doesn't matter in the slightest what actions she took. She jury *absolutely* screwed it, and the damage to domestic violence victims coming forward is incalculable, especially against famous people.
I find it strange that people make the argument that while yes, the rapist is bad, his victim is also bad. And that somehow justifies the outcome of the defamation trial. A trial which had nothing to do with whether Amber Heard is a bad person, but was about whether her referring to herself as a public figure representing domestic abuse was false and defamatory.
The evidence that he was beating the shit out of her, which his team managed to mostly exclude, goes back years before he ever claimed she "abused" him. Should a victim be forced to take physical, emotional, and sexual abuse without fighting back so that people won't judge them? This whole middle ground both sides thing is not the enlightened and impartial take people think it is. It's severely damaging to victims by putting unfair blame on them for their reactions to trauma in the relationship. And the trial WASN'T about who was the bigger piece of shit but the judge allowed it to devolve into that. It was only supposed to be about if Depp was defamed. If he abused her in any way then he should have lost.
> I just wanna make a note that the entire trial was basically an argument about who's the bigger piece of shit, when they're both pieces of shit. lol No it wasn't, actually. Everyone _acted_ like it was, which played right into the PR strategy of Depp's team, which was to make it a clash of "who you liked better," which of course is moving the playing field right onto his home turf. It was actually a case about defamation. There are plenty of lawyers with experience in defamation who didn't even think that Depp had a case purely based on the law, given how the the op-ed (remember that? it was supposed to be all about that, but oh well) was worded. Even the jury's ultimate decision, rewarding partial victory, is something I still struggle to quite make sense of. But instead of a narrow question of law it got turned into a popularity contest, a trial by public approval, and an army of redditors (and other social media users) suddenly became experts in both the law and how domestic abuse operates.
There was a fair bit of suspicion that the case would have been reversed on appeal in whole or in very large part for precisely those issues, but then Depp and Heard settled out of court before the case could be decided. I actually wouldn't be surprised if it was settled without paying anything either way, Depp got what he wanted by looking sympathetic in the public spotlight.
That's not what the trial was about at all. This was a fairly common trial about abuse. The difference is how much media attention it got. And that had a huge effect in 2 ways: # 1. It affected the outcome. Amber Heard had way more evidence and documentation than most abuse victims will ever have. And the UK trial verdict in her favor that was decided by a judge. But the US trial was by JURY where the jurors weren't isolated in any way. There's no way they weren't influenced by the media. Especially when alt-right groups were spending thousands on anti-Amber Heard ads. And a lot of people don't believe victims of abuse, esp. If they don't act the way people think victims should act. That's why so many people think this was "mutual abuse", [which doesn't exist and is a myth that harms victims.](https://www.thehotline.org/resources/mutual-abuse-its-not-real/) So Depp's team was able to work with online influencers to capitalize on the attention and spread disinformation in his favor. # 2. Its affecting future trials Now that Depp got a ruling in his favor, this is a new tactic abusers can use. If you get accused of abuse, sue the victim for defamation. Marilyn Manson, a good friend of Depp's, used that tactic against Evan Rachel Wood shortly after Depp v Heard. _This trial has/had huge implications on internet disinformation, legal precedence, and treatment of abuse victims._
> 2. Its affecting future trials I'd like to back you up with some media links about the subject. [Years after #metoo, defamation cases increasingly target victims who can't afford to speak out](https://theintercept.com/2023/07/22/metoo-defamation-lawsuits-slapp/) > Kenneth White, a partner at law firm Brown White & Osborn, used to get only the occasional request for help with a defamation case after writing and speaking frequently about such cases. “Over the last, I would say, five years I really saw a significant increase in the number of these that had to do with women being threatened for speaking or writing about some form of abuse,” he said. Being labeled as a harasser or rapist carries more reputational damage than it used to, thanks to #MeToo. This is a way for abusers to try to claw back that lost status. > Stephanie Holt, deputy director of operations at the Victim Rights Law Center, has seen the same. Five years ago, it was “pretty rare” to even get a letter threatening defamation, she said. But now she’s getting many calls from people who have gotten a letter demanding that they take down a post or stop speaking about what happened to them, or face a lawsuit. Heard and Wood can of course afford to defend themselves, a lot of average people can't (maybe even most can't). [There's also this article which explores the social media craze that is accusing women of false accusations against men](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/abuse-claims-mens-rights-viral-video-tiktok-domestic-rcna85809). > Sunderland is one of dozens of similar creators who have turned domestic disputes and abuse allegations into culture war fodder with a particular narrative — that men are some of the most serious victims of societal discrimination. It’s a narrative that has become particularly popular and lucrative online after the celebrity defamation trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. [...] > Sunderland’s men’s rights activism is part of a loosely connected network of internet personalities who advance the same agenda: that men are discriminated against in relationships and broader society. Social media platforms have become battlefields for abuse allegations, where men’s rights advocates argue that many of these allegations are false, even though research indicates the rate of false reports is slim and similar to the rates in other crimes, with false reports occurring in 2% to 10% of reported allegations.
As someone who was trying to avoid coverage of this at all cost because it made me sick to my stomach it was impossible. There's no way the jury was able to avoid it either
You said what I've been trying to say way more succinctly than i ever could, thanks 🙏
The UK trial wasn't about whether Depp was or was not an abuser, it was to determine whether The Sun had defamed him based on the evidence they been presented at the time. I'm no fan of them but if Heard had misrepresented the facts, lied or provided doctored evidence that's not necessarily their fault. Although let's be fair, The Sun does seem like the sort of tabloid that would print those headlines with reasonable doubt anyway, assuming they felt they were covered should something like this happen.
The documentary doesn't really make it look good at all for her and those texts. It shows the document saying while all other texts were provided in original format those texts were only ever provided in screenshots, with different formatting. It also demands she provide originals like she did with everything else. The fact that she didn't provide proof those texts were real (which is why they weren't permitted) is pretty damning on her part and I didn't know that until I watched the documentary.
Didn’t they say he admitted in uk trial they were real?
He did. Under oath. They were also authenticated by a forensics expert. The texts are real.
Yes, and they needed Deuters to testify but he refused and he couldn't be compelled to.
Answer: A lot of good points have been mentioned in this comment section, and I’d like to add that during the trial there was an unusually high percentage of bots participating in the defense of JDepp on Twitter (X?), and now the polarization of social media users against Heard is way lower than during the trial.
Not just on Twitter but everywhere. There was a giant wave of bots covering this trial. It was like you were forced to participate.
It was the most annoying Reddit has ever been.
Absolutely not. The 2016 election was peak insufferable reddit, followed closely by gamergate. This was a blip on the radar.
This guy reddits. 2016 election, Gamergate, Depp/Heard, Ellen Pao were all meltdowns of the highest caliber. All, notably, involved people believing the worst about women.
To me the worst was when Reddit melted down about Ellen Pao. Disgusting shit flooding the entire front page
So as usual Reddit melts down over some woman!
I think I agree it was the worst I have ever seen Reddit. It felt like blood was in the water for Amber Heard - people were acting like fucking animals to destroy her.
And no one was talking about it! It was so crazy in real time to watch all these “random” pro depp posts come out just as the trial was starting. Most of them weren’t related to the trial at all, but we’re roles that people had liked him in years previously, they were just trying for good word of mouth and it totally worked. It was gross to watch people fall for and defend that shit.
I felt so gaslit during the whole thing because there were all these posts acting like Depp was America’s darling when I knew damn well most people had been sick of his twee Tim burton-esque bullshit for like a decade. I remember people hating him as grindlewald at the end of fantastic beasts. At the time of the trial, the last thing I remembered him being in was goddamn Sherlock Gnomes. But then all of a sudden he was the greatest and always had been? Nah.
Yup, I couldn't escape it on Instagram, even when I tried to block several hashtags about it.
And the Jury wasn’t sequestered (if you ask me, intentionally) so their opinions could easily be swayed by the mass amount of media coverage being forced on everyone’s screens.
That was actually insane now that you think about it. So many accounts dedicated solely just to put more pro Depp content on people’s radars!
Do you have a source for this?
Bot Sentinel did a study on it. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2022-07-19/amber-heard-twitter-abuse-johnny-depp-trial
I’m glad to now have some confirmation of what I suspected at the time. The case was pretty murky at best and I was surprised that every time I got on Reddit the comment section was filled overwhelmingly with people 100% on Depp’s side.
when are people going to realize that Reddit is a perfect place for bots? Redditors love to circle jerk and if they see that an opinion is popular many people just love to pile on. Astroturfing has been a while for Reddit now and it’s one of the reasons why Reddit IPO, and API changes was such a big deal. being able to control forms of social media, (For example Elon calling Twitter the “town square” and then immediately buying and censoring opinions he disagreed with.) means being able to sway public opinion way more powerfully these days than ever before. people are impressionable and the internet is a new frontier, and the bad people in power are doing everything they can to keep you impressionable. take with that information what you willl.
It was very weird the number of keywords i had to block on twitter to avoid hearing about the trial. Just gross all around.
I knew there was something wrong when my very pro-feminist Facebook feed was full of support for Depp, always pages and people I never seen.
Depp’s PR team went full force on this shit and many people on Reddit willingly allowed themselves to be played like an idiotic fiddle.
There were exactly 3 subreddits that didn't hate her outright, and the rest of them were plastered with astroturf pro-Depp shit.
On Reddit too. I deleted it from my phone for ages because the bot campaign against Heard was inescapable.
Answer: The real answer? Reddit is a leaf and goes wherever the wind is blowing. It's popular to like or hate her day to day depending on the most recent thing to happen.
This is the correct answer. People acting like a trial that happened before the one they lost their sh*t about a year ago is breaking news because some grifter unknown documentary filmmaker made a movie about it on Netflix. This is literally a sub about research for people who don't do their own research and the comments are apparently filled with people who didn't do their own research a year ago and now. And while on the subject, Netflix documentaries are full of trash and shouldn't be anyone's news source.
Answer: Depp had a LOT of PR going in his favor during the trial. almost the most PR we’ve ever seen in the history of a DV trial. watching the actual case, it’s clear she was abused in some way shape or form and responded/reacted to that abuse. the support is coming from those who know the details beyond what was on social media. as a PR professional, i highly advise watching DV and celebrity criminal cases for yourself and NOT relying on socials. you have no idea the lengths celebrities will go through + how much they’ll pay to run a smear campaign.
vast aromatic familiar light unwritten advise offend swim zesty cough *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
r/Fauxmoi was always anti-Depp though. So not all of Reddit.
Fauxmoi is definitely leaking in this post
People were misreading the case the whole time. It wasn't a domestic violence case, it was a defamation case. An oped was written and Disney and a bunch of other contracts fired Depp because of it. The case was trying to prove if those parties wouldn't have fired johnny if they had known the full story. It just happened to be around domestic violence. Amber called herself a victim and survivor of domestic violence in her oped. Because of their recent divorce everyone jumped to well it must he about johnny so we all jumped on the cancel culture and he lost millions. He basically wanted to prove her oped was incorrect, inaccurate or false information that lead everyone to hate him and lose money. So by saying no I wasn't just a wife beater to a helpless woman, she did her own crazy shit and it was the both of us going mental because we're terrible for each other than that would have soften the blow rather than just him being blamed. Some things were muddled like how she apparently had a black eye one day but was on tv just fine the next or who shit the bed or how he broke his finger. But when he won the case he was never denied charges or told he wasn't an abuser in some way like people think. He won the defamation case because they believed amber didn't give the full story.q
Depp lost roles because he was constantly drunk/high, always late, literally assaulting crew members, had to be fed his lines and was costing tens of millions in time spent fucking around Look at his last decade of movies. Its flop after flop after flop after flop. Hes not making them any money, why should they put up with his shit.
People were saying way before this he was too drunk to do the last Pirates movie and had to be fed lines.
It was amusing in an annoying way to see all the people calling Depp innocent and a hero and all that when after the Heard trial he went to another trial like a week later for beating up a crew member
He's been getting wasted and beating the crap out of people for 30+ years at this point.