Only because the ACLU told her to remove Depp's name. In any case, it's clearly about Johnny. Were there any other stories of abuse Amber allegedly (I realize "allegedly" is a VERY strong word for a medically-diagnosed narcissist who's been caught in countless lies, including others not mentioned in said link) suffered around that time? Did she file a restraining order against anyone else? Are there depositions against anyone else from Amber on said subject of abuse in the past few years? Answer to all: NO!

Oh, and I'd say Amber recording herself saying things that never happened to paint a frame-up of Johnny, painting magically-vanishing-as-fast-as-a-day-bruises with makeup and goading Johnny with "no one's gonna believe you because you're a man" is pretty damning evidence she's out to destroy his life with false accusations. We already have proof of damages, two lawyers confirmed he lost his Pirates role because of these false accusations, this speaks pretty clearly to malicious intent as well.

Let me repost the full quote.

"And I'm not sure the op-ed on its own is defamatory. It doesn't mention Depp by name although you could make a good case that it was sufficiently clear without that."

Did you really cut off the part of the same fucking sentence where I said it was likely clear enough without the name to rant at me about how it's clear enough without the name. Man, that is ridiculous. To what end XD?

But, what exactly in this case did the Washington Post do wrong that we should punish them for?

In a domestic violence case, usually there are really only two people who will know what happened.  Even people who knew the couple couldn't say all the things that happened behind closed doors. There is pretty much no way they could have known whether or not the relationship was abusive, or who was abusing who. And, they did not report this as fact, as it is clearly labeled as an op-ed from Amber.

So, again, I'm not sure what they did wrong here. Is a media outlet liable whenever someone lies on their platform? Even when they had no real way of determining that? I actually wrote a whole 40 page note about how speech tort laws are overrestrictive to potential plaintiffs, but if you hold the Post liable in this situation, then you create a standard where no outlet could ever allow anyone to say anything, unless the outlet has personal firsthand knowledge of it. At the very least, if we hold the Post liable here, virtually no victim of any type of crime or abuse could ever be allowed to speak on any platform ever. Even if it would lead to a fair result in this case, and I do not believe that it would under US law or otherwise, this would lead to an incredible level of censorship.   

I don't know about that. If this were just who puts on a better case, so far, then the winner is clear. But, this is not a level playing field. The bar for defamation is incredibly high. They have done a good job of showing that Amber may be the type of person who would intentionally lie about abuse. But that isn't quite proving that Amber did not believe herself, right or wrong, to be the victim of abuse. With the combination of how vague the op-ed is, the general difficulty of proving what is in someone's head at a particular time, and the way the first amendment has been interpretted in similar cases, it's an incredibly difficult case for the plaintiff's side. Unless you have something very specific to hang your hat on, it's really tough. Establishing a general pattern is about the best they could do, but I don't know if it's enough. 

And honestly, I don't know to what extent Depp really cares about winning the case. I think that the main purpose here is to restore his public image, and if he wins, that's a bonus. In that regard, I think he's already "won" regardless of what the judge/jury determines.

Edit: If Heard is lying, then I would definitely book her in my next movie. Obviously, I have no idea, but if it's not true, it's an amazing performance. We'll see how she does in cross.

"Vagueness" is irrelevant. Amber DID intend to namedrop JD in the WP Op-Ed and all available evidence clearly points to it being about JD in any event. Was there anyone else she filed fake TROs against in 2016? No, and I'd hardly call someone recording the plaintiff (in this case, JD) at their weakest and concocting a Gone Girl scheme to try to throw shit on them as not having malicious intent for writing an Op-Ed detailing their "abuse", especially when she conveniently planned it to coincide with Aqua Man's release. Hell, is it just me, or did Amber literally say she plans to paint fake bruises with makeup, take pictures with friends and show them to the authorities because "no one will believe Johnny"?:

Oh, and speaking of playing dirty, it turns out Amber's "injury" photos had metadata tampered with and edited after she stalled the judge's orders to hand over her devices for imaging AND Dr. Hughes (Amber's "expert" witness) has been impeached from other cases for inadmissible hearsay evidence (her lawyers love that word, a lot):

There's only one reason she would do this, and you'd pretty much have to be flat-earther levels of deluded to NOT see it (like we needed any more proof): 

As for Johnny winning, the Legal Bytes YouTube channel full of lawyers live-streaming the trial said they were iffy about his chances during his testimony, but feel much more optimistic now after everything that's come out, from Amber's fake Razzie of a performance where she quotes actual movie lines in her opening statement (which BTW, her antics perfectly mirror Dr. Curry's evaluation of her) to her "expert" sounding biased and unprofessional as all hell on the stand:

 Her story continues to crumble and fall apart. I can't wait for cross examination, which Depp's team will have plenty of time to prepare for. Good to know Dr. Curry's still living rent-free in their head BTW.

For fuck's sake, I already said multiple times that the fact that she didn't name him likely doesn't matter. XD Why are you so intent on trying to make me defend a position I don't hold? It's so bizarre that you're vommiting the same stuff at me again. Are you like a bot or something? 

Then why even bring it up? Everyone knew it was about Johnny, which is why he was lambasted by the media for years and he lost out on movie roles, including his most prominent one. It doesn't matter that it doesn't mention him by name or she had a screw loose (which is common knowledge at this point), Amber has no leg to stand on because all the evidence overwhelmingly points to her abusing AND defaming him and her knowing exactly what she was doing, hence the laughing at the end of one such recording (and I think you know what I'm talking about).

Oh, and once again speaking of her story not adding up, Amber was caught in yet another hole in her constantly-changing timeline (read: lie):

XD XD XD XD XD And you're still trying to argue about it. Man, your reaction when this case ends is gonna be hilarious.

And the hits keep coming:

So basically, AH illegally smuggled her dogs into Australia knowing not only could she face jail time, but the dogs could be put down. The Australian authorities even told her this, and she was like "I don't care" and brought them in (illegally), anyway and perjured herself in doing so by lying about it.

And still, it gets worse: the only reason they weren't put down is because Johnny actually went down and got the dogs OUT of there via private flight, and AH is later chewing him out for saving her dogs' ass.

Wow, this woman is an absolute monster, and I don't say that blindly. I sided with Rhiannah and all of Weinstein's and Cosby's accusers, and believed O.J. did it, and I'll never support anything Roman Polanski does except from the inside of a prison cell, and I thought Greg Hardy was guilty as sin before those undoctored (that's kinda an important detail) bruise photos were made public (here's why). Not this time unless and until somebody can explain to me how AH can be vigorously punched in the face with metal rings, choked, SAed, hair-pulled, phone thrown in her face, etc., left with black eyes, a broken nose and a busted lip and be seen without a single scratch on her face (or anywhere) the very next day, which I have yet to get an affirmative answer for. Why do I think I won't get it?

P.S., most defamation trials don't have the defendant leaving a paper trail this fucking big spelling out in big bold rainbow letters their intent to defame on top of admitting to the things they accuse (read: defame) their victim of. This lawyer thinks her Op Ed is fair (lawsuit) game BTW, "vague" or no.

In Amber's world:

"Pledge" and "donate" are the same thing, but "hitting" and "punching" are not. You can't make this shit up... well, I guess you can if you're AH.

Oh and speaking of Amber's lies, another one got exposed today. Walter Hamada, WB exec said her Aquaman 2 role was cut because she can't act her way out of a wet paper bag with directions on it, not because of JD, completely destroying her countersuit claim in the process:

Asking who did the better evisceration of Little Miss Narcissist between WH and Queen Camille the last 2 weeks is like asking Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees to compete in a butchery contest, but basically, her best case scenario is the jury doesn't award Johnny's $50 mil claim and it's a wash, though I honestly don't know how anyone can believe a word she says once the rest of Johnny's rebuttal witnesses come forward or as is (she was caught hiding a bruise kit while taking a "gotcha" pic of JD passed out FFS).

What makes me say that? On that list is none other than Bryan Neumeister, a photo analyst who discovered AH doctored her photos and fucked with the metadata after failing to turn her phone over in a timely fashion despite being given a court order to do so:

Oh and Jennifer Howell is also due to testify and debunk Whitney's stairs story which doesn't even match her sister's:

And the cherry on top? Amber's incompetent lawyers wasted so much time that they have less than 4 hours left on the stand, meaning they won't be able to cross examine all of them.