By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Johnny Depp asked to resign from Fantastic Beasts series after court loss, #3 delayed

KManX89 said:

the-pi-guy said:

Not that this changes anything, but he was objecting to the answer, not the question.

Then he should've asked to strike it from the record, not object. Objections are for the opposing counsel.

Him supposedly being an experienced lawyer, he should know this stuff in the back of his head.

shikamaru317 said:

It definitely seems like Amber is losing the case. Everything I have seen posted online looks bad for her. Her lawyers seem grossly incompetent, she has been caught in multiple lies, multiple witnesses and experts called to the stand gave testimony that was good for Johnny. I don't see how any sane jury could side with her at this point.

Don't forget audiotapes where Amber once again tries to start fights with Johnny while he tries to deescalate the situation and walk away.

Basically, all they have is the tape where Johnny accidentally head-clashes with Amber while trying to restrain her (which he actually needed medical attention for the swelling she caused to his face, and so him simply walking away wasn't an option this time around, he had to fend her off somehow), some irrelevant drug history, some witch hunt joke texts his friend originally sent him and fake bruise photos which are runny makeup. Basically, nothing tangible. Johnny, OTOH has hours and hours of CCTV, witness statements and audiotapes saying he never touched her.

I can't wait until Amber takes the witness stand because Johnny's team is so gonna eat her alive. So many lies and contradictions in her story for them to expose, it's gonna be juicy. Her lawyers might even do everything in their power to keep her off the stand or answering any questions via constant objections.

Yeah, I'm looking forward to watching that myself. Just seeing some of the camera cuts to her during earlier bits of the trial have been hilarious. She seems completely disinterested in the entire proceeding most of the time, certainly not the behavior of a supposed abuse victim who is on trial for being an abuser herself. 



Around the Network

The best part of that clip with Heard's 2nd lawyer objecting to his own question is Depp's lawyer leaning over and whispering in Johnny's ear while Johnny tries to suppress laughter. You can tell his lawyer is telling him that they pretty much have the trial won at this point. The 2nd best part is the judge's obvious confusion when she says "but you asked the question".



She's absolutely right. If it had been a man saying (read: screeching) these things Amber Turd did to Johnny and taking her detox meds away and causing her to emotionally breakdown in her moment of weakness and shitting in her bed and snapping at her with "I didn't punch you, I fucking was hitting you! You are such a baby!" (and I'm not even scratching the surface of all the narcissistic, abusive shit AH pulled), there wouldn't even be a trial and his career would be over in an instant. Hell, I wouldn't put it past some stranger to put a bullet in his head in public (I'd almost bet money on it), and he/she'd probably be cheered for it (!), that's how rabid the blowback would be if it had been a man doing and saying what she did.

And this was a woman making these claims, who would've thunk it? It's almost like abuse doesn't have a gender or even cares to pick sides!

Oh and as a shock to no one, the ACLU confirms what we already knew: the Washington Post Op Ed was about Johnny. And it caused him to lose his Pirates role.

Last edited by KManX89 - on 03 May 2022

KManX89 said:

She's absolutely right. If it had been a man saying (read: screeching) these things Amber Turd did to Johnny and taking her detox meds away and causing her to emotionally breakdown in her moment of weakness and shitting in her bed and snapping at her with "I didn't punch you, I fucking was hitting you! You are such a baby!" (and I'm not even scratching the surface of all the narcissistic, abusive shit AH pulled), there wouldn't even be a trial and his career would be over in an instant. Hell, I wouldn't put it past some stranger to put a bullet in his head in public (I'd almost bet money on it), and he/she'd probably be cheered for it (!), that's how rabid the blowback would be if it had been a man doing and saying what she did.

And this was a woman making these claims, who would've thunk it? It's almost like abuse doesn't have a gender or even cares to pick sides!

Oh and as a shock to no one, the ACLU confirms what we already knew: the Washington Post Op Ed was about Johnny. And it caused him to lose his Pirates role.

When will the news outlets be held accountable for the terrible work they do? I haven't followed the whole trial, was there any mention of JD wanting to sue the Washington Post?



Amber's lawyer is really bad. It might be just because she got stuck with a shit case and has to pull at weird strings, but she's not coming off well.

padib said:
KManX89 said:

She's absolutely right. If it had been a man saying (read: screeching) these things Amber Turd did to Johnny and taking her detox meds away and causing her to emotionally breakdown in her moment of weakness and shitting in her bed and snapping at her with "I didn't punch you, I fucking was hitting you! You are such a baby!" (and I'm not even scratching the surface of all the narcissistic, abusive shit AH pulled), there wouldn't even be a trial and his career would be over in an instant. Hell, I wouldn't put it past some stranger to put a bullet in his head in public (I'd almost bet money on it), and he/she'd probably be cheered for it (!), that's how rabid the blowback would be if it had been a man doing and saying what she did.

And this was a woman making these claims, who would've thunk it? It's almost like abuse doesn't have a gender or even cares to pick sides!

Oh and as a shock to no one, the ACLU confirms what we already knew: the Washington Post Op Ed was about Johnny. And it caused him to lose his Pirates role.

When will the news outlets be held accountable for the terrible work they do? I haven't followed the whole trial, was there any mention of JD wanting to sue the Washington Post?

 Even if he wants to, he can't. It's an op-ed, so it's clear that Washington Post is not the speaker, they're the publisher. As such, they're not held liable for the speech (in most cases). They are effectively just saying "Amber Heard said this". Or in this case, not even that, they're directly publishing her speech. Unless they claimed to have confirmed it or something, there would be no case here.

Moreover even if we ignore that, Johnny Depp is a public figure, so to be sued for libel, he would have to show that the defamatory statements were made maliciously. (NYTimes v. Sullivan) Either that they knew them to be false, or that they had reckless disregard for the truth. Even if it was false, first hand testimony from the person who allegedly suffered the abuse is definitely going to be enough for them to show that they were not reckless. With firsthand testimony, they would probably be considered to have done their due diligence. In most cases like this, nobody except the direct participants will know exactly what happens, so if you need to personally verify the facts, no victim of abuse can ever speak about it on any platform.

So, I'm close to 100% sure they can not be sued. Nor should they be. I get the argument that they platformed what, based on what I've seen so far, seem to be lies. But, if you allow that lawsuit, then effectively, you hold any news/media outlet 100% accountable for every person they put on their show, let write an op-ed, interview, or so on. A rule that you cannot publish the words of anyone else without becoming directly liable completely guts free speech. Makes much more sense to allow a lawsuit against the person who is actually lying.

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. The issue is that what she's saying is that she's a victim of abuse, and her abuser was protected by people in power. Again, you need to meet the actual malice standard, so you have to show that she knew that to be false. If she genuinely viewed herself as a victim of abuse, even if no reasonable person would agree, then you don't really have a case against her based on that alone. If you're trying to make a case that she was unstable and has personality disorders, she could have seen things that way. Not that I'm making excuses for her, but the law requires what it requires. 

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 03 May 2022

Around the Network
JWeinCom said:

Amber's lawyer is really bad. It might be just because she got stuck with a shit case and has to pull at weird strings, but she's not coming off well.

padib said:

When will the news outlets be held accountable for the terrible work they do? I haven't followed the whole trial, was there any mention of JD wanting to sue the Washington Post?

 Even if he wants to, he can't. It's an op-ed, so it's clear that Washington Post is not the speaker, they're the publisher. As such, they're not held liable for the speech (in most cases). They are effectively just saying "Amber Heard said this". Or in this case, not even that, they're directly publishing her speech. Unless they claimed to have confirmed it or something, there would be no case here.

Moreover even if we ignore that, Johnny Depp is a public figure, so to be sued for libel, he would have to show that the defamatory statements were made maliciously. (NYTimes v. Sullivan) Either that they knew them to be false, or that they had reckless disregard for the truth. Even if it was false, first hand testimony from the person who allegedly suffered the abuse is definitely going to be enough for them to show that they were not reckless. With firsthand testimony, they would probably be considered to have done their due diligence. In most cases like this, nobody except the direct participants will know exactly what happens, so if you need to personally verify the facts, no victim of abuse can ever speak about it on any platform.

So, I'm close to 100% sure they can not be sued. Nor should they be. I get the argument that they platformed what, based on what I've seen so far, seem to be lies. But, if you allow that lawsuit, then effectively, you hold any news/media outlet 100% accountable for every person they put on their show, let write an op-ed, interview, or so on. A rule that you cannot publish the words of anyone else without becoming directly liable completely guts free speech. Makes much more sense to allow a lawsuit against the person who is actually lying.

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. The issue is that what she's saying is that she's a victim of abuse, and her abuser was protected by people in power. Again, you need to meet the actual malice standard, so you have to show that she knew that to be false. If she genuinely viewed herself as a victim of abuse, even if no reasonable person would agree, then you don't really have a case against her based on that alone. If you're trying to make a case that she was unstable and has personality disorders, she could have seen things that way. Not that I'm making excuses for her, but the law requires what it requires. 

Thanks for explaining. I believe that with Johnny Depp essentially losing key roles because of all the controversy, big newspaper outlets should be held more accountable than what the law currently provides for, since it's bottom-line an injustice towards Johnny. Either that or companies behaving based on statements rather than on judgements (like Disney in this case) should also be held accountable. The mental pressure this causes on a person when companies run on controversy and rumors can be very damaging to a person, both Disney and The Wall Street Journal should be examined for what happened here. It's also a bit of a plague in the industry (Chris Pratt, Scarlett Johansson), many other actors suffered similar treatment in Hollywood and it's unhealthy and damaging.



padib said:
JWeinCom said:

Amber's lawyer is really bad. It might be just because she got stuck with a shit case and has to pull at weird strings, but she's not coming off well.

 Even if he wants to, he can't. It's an op-ed, so it's clear that Washington Post is not the speaker, they're the publisher. As such, they're not held liable for the speech (in most cases). They are effectively just saying "Amber Heard said this". Or in this case, not even that, they're directly publishing her speech. Unless they claimed to have confirmed it or something, there would be no case here.

Moreover even if we ignore that, Johnny Depp is a public figure, so to be sued for libel, he would have to show that the defamatory statements were made maliciously. (NYTimes v. Sullivan) Either that they knew them to be false, or that they had reckless disregard for the truth. Even if it was false, first hand testimony from the person who allegedly suffered the abuse is definitely going to be enough for them to show that they were not reckless. With firsthand testimony, they would probably be considered to have done their due diligence. In most cases like this, nobody except the direct participants will know exactly what happens, so if you need to personally verify the facts, no victim of abuse can ever speak about it on any platform.

So, I'm close to 100% sure they can not be sued. Nor should they be. I get the argument that they platformed what, based on what I've seen so far, seem to be lies. But, if you allow that lawsuit, then effectively, you hold any news/media outlet 100% accountable for every person they put on their show, let write an op-ed, interview, or so on. A rule that you cannot publish the words of anyone else without becoming directly liable completely guts free speech. Makes much more sense to allow a lawsuit against the person who is actually lying.

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. The issue is that what she's saying is that she's a victim of abuse, and her abuser was protected by people in power. Again, you need to meet the actual malice standard, so you have to show that she knew that to be false. If she genuinely viewed herself as a victim of abuse, even if no reasonable person would agree, then you don't really have a case against her based on that alone. If you're trying to make a case that she was unstable and has personality disorders, she could have seen things that way. Not that I'm making excuses for her, but the law requires what it requires. 

Thanks for explaining. I believe that with Johnny Depp essentially losing key roles because of all the controversy, big newspaper outlets should be held more accountable than what the law currently provides for, since it's bottom-line an injustice towards Johnny. Either that or companies behaving based on statements rather than on judgements (like Disney in this case) should also be held accountable. The mental pressure this causes on a person when companies run on controversy and rumors can be very damaging to a person, both Disney and The Wall Street Journal should be examined for what happened here. It's also a bit of a plague in the industry (Chris Pratt, Scarlett Johansson), many other actors suffered similar treatment in Hollywood and it's unhealthy and damaging.

There is no law we can make that is going to be perfectly fair in every case. Holding newspapers and other platforms responsible for everything anyone says would prevent them from ever allowing any legitimate victim of abuse from ever speaking. I think holding the person who created the lie responsible is probably the best we're going to do.

At any rate even though Johnny Depp was wronged (based on what I know, I haven't been following super close), I don't really see how the fault lies with with the Washington Post. If the claims were false it makes sense to hold Heard responsible, and I think you could argue against Disney and other companies for taking actions based on only allegations (although that also has problems). As for the Washington Post, I don't see why there should be liability.

Setting aside the first amendment, if we were going to make a claim about this it would be, to simplify, negligence. Essentially a negligence claim is entity X had a duty that they failed and someone was hurt as a direct result. So, what would be the duty here? If you'd say there duty is to only to report what other people are saying when they know it to be 100% factually, I don't think that's a reasonable duty to impose. And even if you want to impose that duty, it's also hard to say that the damage was a direct result of the op ed since other entities with freedom of choice, i.e. Disney, WB, etc., could have responded differently.



JWeinCom said:

And I'm not sure the op-ed on its own is defamatory. It doesn't mention Depp by name

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.

Last edited by KManX89 - on 04 May 2022

KManX89 said:
JWeinCom said:

And I'm not sure the op-ed on its own is defamatory. It doesn't mention Depp by name

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?

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 03 May 2022

JWeinCom said:

There is no law we can make that is going to be perfectly fair in every case. Holding newspapers and other platforms responsible for everything anyone says would prevent them from ever allowing any legitimate victim of abuse from ever speaking. I think holding the person who created the lie responsible is probably the best we're going to do.

At any rate even though Johnny Depp was wronged (based on what I know, I haven't been following super close), I don't really see how the fault lies with with the Washington Post. If the claims were false it makes sense to hold Heard responsible, and I think you could argue against Disney and other companies for taking actions based on only allegations (although that also has problems). As for the Washington Post, I don't see why there should be liability.

Setting aside the first amendment, if we were going to make a claim about this it would be, to simplify, negligence. Essentially a negligence claim is entity X had a duty that they failed and someone was hurt as a direct result. So, what would be the duty here? If you'd say there duty is to only to report what other people are saying when they know it to be 100% factually, I don't think that's a reasonable duty to impose. And even if you want to impose that duty, it's also hard to say that the damage was a direct result of the op ed since other entities with freedom of choice, i.e. Disney, WB, etc., could have responded differently.

I'm personally not American so the charter of the US does not mean as much to me as it does to you and probably others, and of course the JD case is an American one so I understand your reply. I'm speaking in terms of the sense of justice in general. Newspapers have been very irresponsible in the way they are using information in a way that causes injustice and more problems than to not report. I'm not for censorship either. But responsibility is lacking here.

IMHO

I agree though that Disney is more accountable than WSJ here. Still the newspapers are starting to upset me.