That has hit so many spots as its kinda like my current relationship that i just dont know how to walk away from.. Johnny Depp is a hero to male victims around the world

Wow i almost feel like im talking to myself what your saying is like an image for me. I honestly know i need to walk away she beat me, blamed me done so much shit its not even funny, but i love her and really she has me pretty brain washed id get no one else other then her. And even if i know its brain washing im hitting 40 soon and she is only 32 and pretty good looking ya know. Im kinda thinking my chances of getting someone else good looking is running out.

I didn't know how to walk away either; she was severely depressed, self-harming and suicidal by the end so I was terrified if I left she'd kill herself.

In the end, I had to just gather my courage and say no more, I can't do this. It was one of the hardest things I've ever had to do, but I had to save myself. I urge you to do the same. For your own mental and physical safety, get out. 

There are very few people I've disclosed my experiences to, because I read people saying things like "but you're twice her size, why not just stop her" all the time online. My ex hit me in the throat while I was sleeping; how was my size supposed to prevent that? She punched me hard in the chest without warning for not finishing a drink in one go, my size didn't mean it didn't hurt and make me feel unsafe.

This all happened over 7 years ago and just in the last few months have I managed to finally overcome my fear of sleeping in the same room as someone else with my current partner, who is lovely and very understanding.

I'm not a fan of celebrities and it's not like I know all that much about this but I have been absolutely stunned at the number of media outlets that have been firmly on the side of Amber Heard. I mean, of the two, she is the one that is an ADMITTED abuser. At the very least, condemn them both, but to circle the wagons around someone who is undoubtedly abusive?

How can these publications have any pride whatsoever? How can they expect anyone to respect them when they support someone that clearly engaged in domestic abuse without an ounce of remorse?

One thing that we all know without the slightest bit of doubt is that, had Amber Heard been male, she would have been universally vilified after her admission of physical violence. That means the ONLY reason they have for being on her side is that she's female. That makes them complete hypocrites. They're telling the world that they don't really care about domestic abuse, they just want to use it as a political tool. It's disgusting.

To be honest, though, none of the articles I've read have really talked about anything concrete regarding the case or explained why she's right. They've just accused the "internet" and anyone who doesn't support her of misogyny and of being far-right cultists. It's plain bullying, trying to force readers into a "you're either with us or against us" moral dilemma.

On a much more personal level, I've had an abuser look me in the eye and tell me with a smirk on her face that no one would believe me because I'm male and she's female. I've had a female supervisor dismiss my initial foray into the subject with, "she probably thought you liked it," after which I simply gave up. This is real. This happens. That those who SHOULD be on your side don't care unless you meet their demographic criteria ... that says a lot about who they really are.

I stand corrected then, the first statement specifically says sexual violence. Still a bit of wiggle room there, but much more concrete than "domestic abuse". The second one, I dunno. She became a figure representing abuse, whether she actually was abused or not. And, she may have seen how men accused of abuse were protected, even if they did not actually commit abuse. 

I can see a defence lawyer trying to use these arguments, but it would be a bad tactic. Surely context should be taken into account and it's obvious these statements are about Depp abusing Heard. 

Again, actual malice is a specific legal term. It does not mean malicious as we would use it in ordinary life, it means that the person knew it was a lie or stated it with reckless disregard of its truth. If it can be proved she believed what she was saying, then the case would have been dismissed, regardless of whether she said it to hurt Depp. This is the argument Alex Jones is using in all of his lawsuits. You are allowed to say truthful statements, or statements that are true to you, to hurt someone who is a public figure. Defamation is an intentional tort which requires a particular state of mind, in the case of a public figure, to intentionally lie. If that was true to her, she lacked the state of mind, and could not be held liable. If Johnny Depp was a random person though, she could have been found liable either way. The standard is different for public figures.

Either the jury wasn't convinced that she believed it, or Heard did not want her lawyers to argue that she was not actually abused as we would commonly understand it. There may have been some arguments that could have worked but would have been more damaging to her overall than the actual verdict. They chose to have her maintain she was actually abused, which may have been economically the best decision but not the strongest legal argument.

I know actual malice is a legal term and I still think it's easy to establish here. She knew him personally and made statements about something that happened between them. She was there so she knows the truth. Yet her claims were found untrue. The basis is she's intentionally lying. 

Idk who Alex Jones is but it's difficult to establish actual malice if someone is talking shit about someone they don't personally know or events they didn't witness themselves. They can always say "well my sources told me this and I'm dumb enough to believe it" etc. Or if you claim Biden flashed his dick to you "well I've never seen him in person before, I really thought it was him".

Interesting case from legal aspect though.

It really depends on how you interpret the terms abuse or sexual abuse. I would argue, if I were on Heard's side, that the statements only meant that Heard found his behaviors to be abusive. If abusive means abusive by Heard's standards, then you would need to show that she didn't actually consider the behaviors abusive. And again, when she has a personality disorder, as Depp's team argued, I think you could make a case that she simply had a warped perspective, and believed herself to have been abused. But she didn't want to make that case. On the other hand, you could take her statement to mean that Depp's behavior met the standards that society in general would find to be abusive. In that case, actual malice would not be super hard to prove. 

The really weird part to me is that the jury also found that Johnny Depp's statement, through his lawyer, that the whole thing was a hoax designed to hurt him was also found defamatory against Heard. And I'm not quite sure how the jury could seemingly hold both that Johnny Depp was lying when he said it was a hoax, but that she knowingly lied about the abuse. Those two things don't square up for me. It's possible that the jury kind of compromised, which sadly happens alot. Like, there was one person on the jury who wanted to find for Heard, but they appeased them by calling one of Depp's statements defamatory. Or of course, it could just be something I'm missing. Unfortunately, jury deliberations are private, so I guess we'll never know.

I'd say her putting on a fake bruise the one day she's not wearing makeup to get a TRO when Johnny's out of town and can't defend himself and tipping off TMZ to photograph it at the courthouse, telling them exactly where to take the picture, then going out with Raquel with a fresh face the very next day is clear proof she knows she's lying as is this audio, editing photos and stalling the examination process during discovery to boot (there's only ONE reason she would do that) and her constantly changing her story. 

It wasn't Depp's statement they found defamatory BTW, it was his (ex-)lawyer's. Basically, she "won" $2 mil for something his lawyer said about her, she owes him $10 mil for everything she said about him, and the two aren't mutually exclusive. Just because "they" didn't find one incident of staged damages believable (and it WAS a compromise BTW) doesn't necessarily hold that she never lied about him abusing her (her friends easily could've not touched anything and still made that whole abuse incident up, which was proven by police bodycam), which she lost on all 3 counts. She's also the only one who was levied punitive damages between the two. She objectively lost, the media acknowledged it. 

She even admits she lost (in the most snarky, self-absorbed way possible):

Talk about learning nothing. That narcissism is exactly why she lost and why no studio will want to work with her ever again.