JRPGfan said:
JWeinCom said:
People don't know what actual malice means in this context. It does not mean Amber was mean in general or a terrible person. It refers only to the specific defamatory statement, not her behavior in general. It means in regard to that specific statement, the person knew it was not true. Essentially as George Costanza says "Remember, it's not a lie, if you believe it." If Amber believed herself to be a victim of abuse, regardless of whether that belief was justified, she should have won, unless the jury interpreted abuse to have a more specific connotation that implied specific acts by Johnny Depp. My intuition is that it's very possible that someone like Amber would perceive herself as a victim, even if no objective person would make the same judgment. Lots of people who are abusive perceive themselves as victims. I haven't heard the testimony, and honestly don't really care that much, so I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. |
So she should win the case, becuase shes a mental nutcase? And atleast one jury member would see her that way?
Thankfully it didnt turn out that way.
Also the OP-ed, doesnt mentiong "any kid of abuse", it mentions PHYSICAL abuse (ei. beating the crap out of someone type of deal).
She claimed johnny would lay hands on her.
She has a habit of documenting things (video's and pictures), and the best she could come up with, was heavily photoshopped/altered pictures?
(ontop of her always being in the spot light, as a celeb.... you would imagine that paparrazi would photograf something if she was beaten and brused, and a day after went out to a talk show ect)
Nah, she lied way to many times, for her word alone to carry any weight.
she had zero proof of anything. While johnny's team disproved so many of her claims, and caught her in so many lies. Imo we should be thankfull justice actually works, in favor of a actual victim, even if that person is a man. |
