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

JWeinCom said:
KiigelHeart said:

(1) “I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.” (2) “Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.” (3) “I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.

Those are the statements found to be defamatory. I'd say it should be easy to establish actual malice if she got caught lying, even if she indeed felt she was a victim of abuse. Has "he/she believed his/her own lies" ever been a viable defence? Well maybe if she provided a psychologigal evaluation by doctors that she's out of touch with reality. 

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.



Around the Network
KiigelHeart said:
JWeinCom said:

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.



JWeinCom said:
KiigelHeart said:

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.

Last edited by KManX89 - on 03 June 2022

KManX89 said:
JWeinCom said:

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.

I've tried to explain about 5 times that the lawsuit is not about whether she is a liar in general, but the particular statement in question. Everything she ever said could be a lie, but if she believed that statement to be true, rightly or wrongly, that would defeat the claim. But you keep repeating the same irrelevant thing. I'm not interested. Leave me alone.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 03 June 2022

The question is does she actually believe anything?



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
curl-6 said:

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.

And if you immobilize her outsiders will say you are much bigger than her so you are hurting her and should be ashamed.

I did have to immobilize her a few times; once on a train station platform I had to hold her still to stop her jumping in front of an oncoming train.

On the occasions she hit me it simply happened without warning and too fast for me to react to stop it. Heck, one time I was dozing with my eyes closed. Superior strength alone is not enough to stop physical abuse.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 06 June 2022

Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023. (And over 130 million lifetime)

I find this actual malice debate curious. She had first hand knowledge of the situation. She knew she was lying. She knowingly published false statements. That's actual malice. More over in a he said/she said case the credibility is important and Amber has none. Once Camille Vasquez cross examined her and repeatedly caught he in lies. She had lost whatever credibility she had left with the jury if she had any left to begin with.



Darc Requiem said:

I find this actual malice debate curious. She had first hand knowledge of the situation. She knew she was lying. She knowingly published false statements. That's actual malice. More over in a he said/she said case the credibility is important and Amber has none. Once Camille Vasquez cross examined her and repeatedly caught he in lies. She had lost whatever credibility she had left with the jury if she had any left to begin with.

The point JWeinCom was pushing was that it isn't she telling a lie or not, was if she believed it was a lie.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
Darc Requiem said:

I find this actual malice debate curious. She had first hand knowledge of the situation. She knew she was lying. She knowingly published false statements. That's actual malice. More over in a he said/she said case the credibility is important and Amber has none. Once Camille Vasquez cross examined her and repeatedly caught he in lies. She had lost whatever credibility she had left with the jury if she had any left to begin with.

The point JWeinCom was pushing was that it isn't she telling a lie or not, was if she believed it was a lie.

You think somebody who honestly believed they were abused, real or not would go to court with a fake makeup bruise to get a TRO when their ex was out of the country and couldn't defend himself the day after police came over and said she had no bruises and tip off TMZ to take pics?

Yeah, no, that's somebody who knows they're lying, plain and simple. This is to say nothing of the PILES of other evidence she knows she's lying.

Oh, and speaking of trouble:

We did it, guys... I think.



KManX89 said:

Oh, and speaking of trouble:

We did it, guys... I think.

Gee, I hope this is real.