#''ThERe'S A SoCIaL MeDIa CaMPaiGn AgAiNst AmBEr''

[bloembedgum1]

Can't believe people are back on this

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Emily Singer at Daily Kos:

A new poll released on Tuesday found that a majority of Americans believe former President Donald Trump would sign a national abortion ban into law, a sign that his desperate attempt to have it both ways on the abortion issue is not working. The Navigator Research survey found that 51% of Americans believe Trump would sign a federal abortion ban, including 49% of independent voters who could be decisive in deciding a close election. The poll also found that a whopping two-thirds think Trump believes that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases—even though 64% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. The poll is a warning sign for Trump, who has been desperately trying to thread the needle on the abortion issue since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, paving the way for Republican-controlled legislatures to ban abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Currently, 21 states ban abortion before fetal viability, with seven states banning the procedure in almost all circumstances, according to The New York Times.

Trump has bragged multiple times about being responsible for the end of Roe. “After 50 years of failure, with nobody coming even close, I was able to kill Roe v. Wade, much to the ‘shock’ of everyone,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social social media platform in 2023, adding that he “put the Pro Life movement in a strong negotiating position” to ban abortion across the country. “What I did is something—for 52 years they’ve been trying to get Roe v. Wade into the states. And through the genius and heart and strength of six Supreme Court justices, we were able to do that,” Trump said again at the Sept. 10 presidential debate against Vice President Kamala Harris.

But Trump has also tried to claim that he wouldn't sign a national abortion ban into law—even though he’s advocated for a national abortion ban in the past.  “Everyone knows I would not support a federal abortion ban, under any circumstances, and would, in fact, veto it, because it is up to the states to decide based on the will of their voters,” Trump wrote in a post on X. That is not the position Trump had when he was in office. In 2018, Trump told people gathered at the March for Life—an annual anti-abortion march in Washington, D.C.—that he wanted Congress to pass a national abortion ban.  “​​I’ve called on Congress—two of our great senators here, so many of our congressmen here—and called upon them to defend the dignity of life and to pass legislation prohibiting  late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in their mother’s womb,” Trump said in a speech at the March for Life, referencing the 20-week abortion ban legislation that Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina introduced.

[...] “Everything is wrong with our country and nothing’s right and all they talk about is abortion,” Trump moaned at a September campaign rally, whining that “the fake news keeps saying women don’t like me.” He later said that if he wins women, “will no longer be thinking about abortion”—a bizarre and absurd comment as women will continue getting pregnant and needing reproductive freedom even if Trump wins. Harris, meanwhile, has made her support for reproductive freedom a cornerstone of her campaign. She promised that if elected, she’d sign a law restoring the protections Roe provided if Congress puts it on her desk.  Her campaign has been running ads highlighting Trump’s anti-abortion record. And at her rallies, she has been telling the story of Amber Thurman, a Georgia woman who died because she did not receive prompt abortion care.  “Donald Trump still refuses to take accountability, to take any accountability, for the pain and the suffering he has caused," Harris said at a rally in Atlanta on Oct. 20.

A poll from Navigator Research conducted between October 3rd and 7th reveals that a majority of voters would expect Donald Trump to sign a national abortion ban of some kind if he is elected.

Want to prevent such a ban from ever happening? Vote Kamala Harris and Democrats down the ticket.

[warningsine]

Just over a year ago, a woman told a crowded room that her ex-husband had kicked and slapped her. She described him throwing a phone at her face. She described him penetrating her with a wine bottle. “I remember not wanting to move because I didn’t know if it was broken,” she said. “I didn’t know if the bottle that he had inside me was broken.” While she said all these things, people laughed. People called her a whore and a liar. People cheered for her ex-husband, and made posters and T-shirts emblazoned with his face.

Only about 14 months have passed since Amber Heard was mocked and shamed on a global stage. But, apparently, that means it’s now high time to relive it. This week, a new three-part series from director Emma Cooper drops on Netflix (UK viewers can also watch via Channel 4 on demand). That’s right folks, we’re back in the hellscape that is Depp v Heard.

There are certain legal cases that transcend courtroom drama to become full-blown ‘where were you when’ cultural moments. Usually, these ‘trials of the century’ are criminal trials. Charles Manson in 1970; OJ Simpson in 1995. But, occasionally, a different calibre of case will grip the public consciousness – one that spins around sex and humiliation; one that strikes to the heart of how contemporary culture understands gender and power. In 1991, attorney Anita Hill testified that Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her while she worked as an adviser to him. The Senate ultimately confirmed Thomas’ nomination, while Hill received death threats. Just a few years later, as the new millennium swam into view, another sex scandal rocked American society. This time, the main characters were President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Despite Clinton eventually admitting to having had an affair with Lewinsky, for many years the court of public opinion was clear in its verdict: Monica Lewinsky was either a whore, or a liar, or both.

In a sense, the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard defamation trial, which took place from April 11 to June 1 2022, in Fairfax County, Virginia, combined elements of all of these previous ‘trials of the century’. As with Clinton and Lewinsky, a relationship between a younger woman and an older, more famous and more powerful man was under the microscope. In an echo of Hill v Thomas, during which lawmakers accused Anita Hill of suffering from a ‘delusional disorder’, a psychologist hired by Depp’s legal team ‘diagnosed’ Heard with borderline personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder. Like Charles Manson, the man at the centre of proceedings was also the figurehead of an obsessive fan club. And if that fan club grew to resemble a cult, in its slavish devotion to Depp against all reason, it’s largely because, like Simpson’s trial, the whole thing was televised.

However, one key difference between Depp v Heard and these other previous high-profile trials, is the influence of social media on public opinion. The trial was not only ‘televised’ but also TikToked, live-streamed and memed. The tagline for Cooper’s three-parter Depp v Heard even bills the trial as ‘the first trial by TikTok’.

The show opens with the Hollywood sign flickering into Amber Heard’s face on a red carpet. There’s old footage of Depp and Heard on the Hollywood walk of fame, at a dinner, and stepping off a boat in Venice glitch and distort into shots of Los Angeles freeways. News anchors read headlines about the couple, and about the trial. The screen glitches again, into a tree lined highway in Virginia. More clipped footage, more contextualising news clips. Then one anchor raises an important issue – a crucial factor in the trial proceedings that, a year on, often gets lost in the heady internet fog of misinformation, conspiracy, clout-chasing and PR campaigns. Why was the whole sorry spectacle staged in Virginia, when neither Heard nor Depp live or work there?

Well, the ‘official’ reason Depp was allowed to sue in the state is because the news outlet that ran Heard’s article, The Washington Post, “houses its printing press and online server in Fairfax County.” Yet, it’s also because, under Virginia law, the trial judge can decide whether to allow cameras in the courtroom.

Heard’s team tried to exclude the cameras from the trial. At a pre-trial hearing in February, attorney Elaine Bredehoft noted there was already a huge amount of media attention on the trial, as well as scrutiny from what she described as “fearful anti-Amber networks”. “What they’ll do is take anything that’s unfavourable,” Bredehoft said, “they’ll take out of context a statement, and play it over and over and over and over again.” Depp’s team, on the other hand, wanted the trial televised. “Mr. Depp believes in transparency,” his lawyer, Ben Chew declared. It should have been a sign of what was to come that the judge sided with Depp. “I don’t see any good cause not to do it,” Penney Azcarate, the chief judge of Fairfax County, announced. Others saw it differently. “Allowing this trial to be televised is the single worst decision I can think of in the context of intimate partner violence and sexual violence in recent history,” Michele Dauber, a professor at Stanford Law School said in May 2022. “It has ramifications way beyond this case.”

One of the ramifications of Judge Azcarate’s decision is that Depp v Heard is now on our screens. But, none of those quotes from various legal professionals are taken from the series. Indeed, there are no expert voices at all. There is no narration. No one who was involved in the trial is involved in this directly. There is no ‘broad view’, or ‘behind the scenes’, or ‘recontextualising with the benefit of hindsight’. This is a documentary in the loosest of senses. Early takes from the other side of the pond have been split – some critics have suggested it “casts the trial of the decade in a new light”, while others have deemed it “nothing more than a tactless win for pro-Johnny fans”. Perhaps this shouldn’t come as a surprise, given that the trial itself was so notoriously divisive. Personally, I’m inclined to agree with Audra Heinrichs of Jezebel, who described the docuseries as playing “like a highlight reel from hell”. 

If Depp v Heard suggests anything, it’s that people consuming the trial were biased. Well, that’s hardly a scoop, and to my mind, it’s certainly not worth the full, three-hour docuseries treatment. The series doesn’t dig into the motivations of the anti-Amber content creators or their backgrounds. For example, one prolific poster and top Depp stan who is featured extensively but anonymously in Cooper’s three-parter is Andy Signore. Not long before the Depp v Heard trial began, Signore had been fired from Screen Junkies, the YouTube-focused company he founded, for a variety of sexual misconduct allegations. Having set up his channel Popcorned Planet after being dismissed, Signore now posts livestreams about ‘daily news’ and ‘pop culture justice.’ Mainly, he covers what he characterises as the injustice of the #MeToo movement. Signore more than doubled the following of his YouTube channel during Depp v Heard. He made more than 300 videos about the trial, ratcheting up millions of views as he built a new reputation as a crusader for ‘justice’ and, crucially, making money in the process.

All the content creators immortalised in this series, and many more besides, were making money – but this also isn’t discussed or made explicit in Depp v Heard. Cooper presumably believes this allows the content to speak for itself, and lets the viewer weigh up their own thoughts, becoming another member of the public jury. But the true effect is just blur – an endless stream of stuff. Just how much money were all these #JusticeForJohnny content creators making? Was there a coordinated and well funded online PR campaign for Depp throughout the trial, fuelled by bots, as many alleged post-trial? Depp v Heard has no answers, just more clips. He said, she said. No thoughts, just vibes.

I wrote about Depp v Heard last year as the trial was ongoing. Then, I felt like I had to maintain some semblance of neutrality in my discussion of the ‘facts’ of the case itself. The piece wasn’t about who was ‘right’, or who was telling ‘the truth’ – it was about how strange the spectacle of the case had become, and how dangerous a precedent it seemed to set, if trials about intimate partner violence could be spun into comic TikTok clips. I didn’t want to come down on one ‘side’. I wrote that “treating an ongoing defamation trial, featuring graphic and distressing testimony about physical violence, coercive control, and sexual assault, like […] Netflix’s latest true crime documentary series is, at best, distasteful and, at worst, actively dangerous.” Now, as Netflix’s latest documentary series opens up the can of worms again, the only true takeaway is how little we’ve learnt since then.

[knuckle]

i don't want to say too much about this because i do not have the abundant free time i once did to obsess over amber heard & The (Social) Media, but it is a little concerning to me that people are taking contextless therapy notes about Jason Momoa and James Wan at absolute face value when

Amber Heard has stated she is grateful and proud to be in Aquaman 2; she clearly does not want a campaign of criticism against those involved in the project

Therapy is an intensely private space meant to vent your worst fears, most irrational reactions, puzzle out how people have treated you, and make sense of things from someone who is holding you in universal positive regard. a half written sentence saying that Momoa dressed like Depp, and it was triggering does not mean that Heard was blaming Momoa for it or that she thought he was intentionally doing so

Wan's comment read as general frustration about the project & harassment from Depp's fans. Heard's response of "I'm sorry" does not necessarily mean he was actually blaming her. (He could have been but we do not have context!)

We have no idea how often these comments happened, if there were apologies to Heard, how she actually feels about it at present, except, again, that she wants her involvement with the movie to be read positively. She is trying to avoid drama.

It does not escape me that two men of color (however flawed and horrible they may or may not be) are being pitted as unrepentant and deranged abusers of a white woman whom they, unlike most of the rest of Hollywood, refused to publicly throw under the bus when she was at her lowest, and I wish people would temper their criticisms and rush to judgment in light of that.

TL:DR I don't know why I expected better of Heard's supporters, but it's just sad the way that so many people follow her life and any remnants of the trial for the scandal & drama rather than take into account what may actually be best for giving her a more peaceful life with fewer burned bridges as she wishes.

[astrangerinthestreet]

Part 2 of my Depp v Heard series looking at the social media campaign against Amber Heard following her divorce from Johnny Depp

[papirouge]

NEVER forget despite what pathological liars say, mainstream medias were in their vast majority, pro Amber.

Social media/the people, on the other hand, was siding with Johnny.

That's why so many pro Amber freaked out at the actual hate movement against Amber : they simply cannot stomach the fact that media don't control people anymore and that the common citizen can now make their own voice heard (no pun intended) loud and clear.

It was very interesting to see pro Heard complain about "the media circus" surrounding this case, as if the "society of spectacle" wasn't already a well documented observation of modern communications dynamics for the last few decades - and most importantly, not exclusive to the Depp v Heard case or society's (alleged) rampant misogyny.....

They precisely act like legacy medias which, feeling their power & influence significantly lowering by the time, attempt to remove any credibility to grassroot reinfo movement, calling them conspiracy theorists, fake news, etc.

... this reminds you of something? Pro Heard obsessively called the movement in support of Johnny "PR smear campaign" or bots. It wouldn't remotely occur to them that Johnny Depp overwhelming support in the general public was genuine, and could be rationally explained by the fact he's been one of Hollywood's most popular actor for decades with iconic roles (Edward Scissorhands, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Sleepy Hollow, Cry Baby, etc.) and mostly importantly interpreted one of Disney live action movie most beloved character: Jack Sparrow. Heard was a literally a 'who' next to him, which explains why she would never be able to leverage support in such a conflicting case (so no, it doesn't necessarily has to be misogyny)

They are obsessed in controlling the narrative, even if that means lying consistently about factual reality.

Look at them obsessively keeping tabs on whoever liked Johnny Depp first post trial Instagram post, and making entire lists off of them to be canceled....

Unsurprisingly they also suddenly started cussing out popular jury who aren't "law professionals" just because the court decision didn't give the ruling they expected... Those activists pretending to care about the people are actually the biggest elitists.

Their coping about "the tide is turning" or "I can't wait for the documentary exposing how we all wronged Amber Heard" never fails making me wonder: "who's the we?" Mainstream media were and are still in their vast majority pro Heard. The general public? They mostly moved on and rejoiced at Depp winning his case. They will never apologize or feel sorry for Heard because they don't think she deserves any apology. People don't owe nothing to celebrities. Crime of thought or opinion isn't a thing.

This is the internet: Amber Heard is not the first, last, or the only laughing stock it collectively decided to pick on for any season. And the internet will never feel sorry. Deal with it.

Tbh I also blame the #freebritney movement that made too many of you believe that TMZ and paparazzi harassing celebrities represented regular citizens and that people actively sought out to ruin her... Zoomers don't seem to grasp early 00s people were much more removed from "field reportreport" as we are today, which means they had a more apathetic perspective on celebrity struggles. If media decided to milk this repentance shtick regarding their collective coverage of Britney antics back then to revamp their image, that's on them, but expecting this dynamic onto random people (not media news) who didn't have any say on media narrative is wishful thinking....

Amber Heard is none of your friend, sister, wife or mother. None of you know her. None of you talked to her, and never will. So it's weird to me how some of you are hellbent acting like we owed anything to her.

Why elevating your parasocial involvement in a millionaire celebrity civil case as a cautionary tale for ALL women?

[originalleftist]

Even though the frenzy has mostly died down, and public opinion has shifted somewhat, Amber Heard's image remains poisoned by the trials and the associated hate campaign against her.

Just as an example, I typed "amber heard" into the search bar on Youtube. Here, in order, are the top 14 prompts it gave me:

amber heard

amber heard kate moss

amber heard johnny depp

amber heard my dog stepped on a bee

amber heard cross examination

amber heard interview

amber heard now

amber heard mentions kate moss

amber heard kiss

amber heard testimony

amber heard aquaman 2

amber heard lawyer gets owned

amber heard trial

amber heard johnny depp funny moments

See the problem? 14 prompts, and of those, 9 directly reference her abuser, the abuse, or the trial, and 3 of those are overtly derogatory/demeaning to her or her legal team.

A grand total of ONE references her work as an actor, in 11th place on the list, and then only her most recent film.

Actually search "amber heard" and view the search results, and it's even worse. Of the videos (not counting shorts) that come up, 6 of the top 10 are, just by glancing at the thumbnail/caption, overtly hostile and derogatory to her/her legal team, 3 pretty clearly are (ie using photos of her chosen to appear ugly or hostile, asserting that Aquaman 2 "failed"), and the last one appears to be an SNL skit about the Virginia trial. Of the shorts, 2 or 3 out of the first 8 visible are overtly negative, and at least 6 reference the trial or other scandals/controversies.

Granted most places I've seen aren't as bad as Youtube, Youtube is the absolute bottom of the barrel for hate content on social media, a recent study by the Anti-Defamation League actually found it was the worst offender for monetizing hate over Facebook and Musk's Twitter. But still.

If you are a random person who searches her name on Youtube, nearly everything you see about her will be about the Virginia trial or related controversy, most of it overtly demeaning/vilifying her. You have to actively look to find anything positive about her or her work or any other aspect of her life, and even then, you WILL have to trawl through a lot of MRA/Alt. Reich-ish content designed to illicit feelings of hatred, disgust, and contempt toward her, and often toward women and abuse survivors generally. If you are someone who didn't follow the trial, or a young person in a few years who was too young to remember it, and you look her name up, these are the first things you'll likely see, and your first impression of her. Everything else about her life- her dozens of film and television roles, her other relationships, her extensive activism and charitable work, is obscured. And any future work that she does will likely be difficult to promote, because it'll get quickly buried in all this shit (I am reminded of Steven Bannon's infamous remark describing his media tactics, "flood the zone with shit", and much of the hate campaign against Heard is very much in his style). And that will follow her for years- to some extent, probably, forever.

And somehow, that's not the saddest part about all of this. The saddest part is that she has a young daughter who, if not already, will soon be old enough to go on social media, or talk to people who have, and find out exactly what much of the world says about her mother, and by association her. Lovely.

And to be honest I feel guilty even posting about it any more, because even by posting about it to call it out, I'm still contributing to the fact that so much of the content on social media about her is about the abuse and trial, that that's still defining how her whole life is perceived, and I know that, and I know that she probably doesn't want to be defined by that forever. Which is part of why I've tried to consciously shift in recent months to posting more about the rest of her life and work, and less about the trials and the witch-hunt.

But sometimes I do still feel the urge to point at this shit and say "What the fuck?"

[sseditorialrunway]

The Supermodel

A Supermodel is a model who is, as we would put it in today's terms, 'booked and busy'. Famous supermodels include Naomi Campbell, Linda Evangelista, Carla Bruni, Gisele Bundchen and Tyra Banks, to name a few.

Frankie Raydar is a top model who reached supermodel status in the early 2000s. She was in such high demand that designers often paid her extra to cancel other bookings.

Often, a new group of supermodels emerge from the rest of the group. Supermodels walk in multiple highly publicised runway shows by notorious fashion houses and are the face of campaigns.

Here, Gisele walks the Dior 2003 runway show and stars in the Dior 2003 campaign.

Supermodels differ from standard models because they top runway shows, print covers, achieve double-page spreads and often wear the most expensive items in the collection. Celebrities will then wear these designs on the red carpets.

Models would historically become a designer's muse. Famous muses have been Amber Valetta for Versace, Adriana Lima & Tyra Banks for Victoria's Secret and Natasha Poly for Gucci. The rise of Victoria's Secret changed this.

Victoria's Secret was a popular runway show because they used supermodels in their runway shows and, of course, put bras and panties on display. They were one of the first brands to use technology to push the commercialism of the brand.

Being contracted to Victoria's Secret as an 'Angel' meant widespread attention for the models. This was a new pathway for models to reach supermodel status.

Models who could not book every show during fashion seasons could make it up during the 1-hour lingerie extravaganza.

The commercialisation of Victoria's Secret meant that angels who could not book fashion and beauty campaigns, they would still achieve circulation attention through the catalogue produced by the lingerie giant.

Models such as Heidi Klum, Alessandra Ambrosio, Selita Ebanks and Marisa Miller reached supermodel status this way. They didn't walk in many high fashion shows like the other girls but could command high salaries when they did.

That's another thing. Supermodels are paid far better than your average model. Supermodels command 5 figures for walking just one show. This ties into the point earlier about Frankie Raydar.

90s supermodels stood out with just their first names. Naomi. Tyra. Helena. Cindy. Tatiana. Linda. Claudia. Yasmeen. Kate. Shalom. Christy.

Early 2000s supermodels include Gisele. Frankie. Carmen. Karolina. Karen. Isabeli. Eva. Maggie. Amber. Caroline. Adriana. Alessandra. Selita. Fernanda. Michelle. Natalia. Note that most, if not all, of the models, have previously worked with Victoria's Secret.

The next generation of supermodels includes Daria. Natasha. Anja. Caroline. Snejana. Lily. Izabel. Racquel. Hana. Julia. Vlada. Jessica. Magdalena. Mariacarla. Gemma. Maryna. Eugenia. Doutzen. Andrea. Karmen. Abbey-Lee. Bianca.

After this, supermodels begin to fall off. Where there were supermodels, they were few are far between. Supermodels in this generation include Candice. Chanel. Jourdan. Cara. Karlie. Joan. Liu-Wen.

In recent times, it has become difficult for some to pinpoint a supermodel. Social media is the new pathway into superstardom, and girls no longer need to be scouted in the streets.

The early 90s supermodels are now mothers, and the new generation of top models is here. Top models include Gigi. Bella. Kendall. Kaia. Binx. Cara. Irina. Adut. Anok. Imaan. Sora. Rianne. Mica. Maty. Mona. Vittoria.

A supermodel must dominate both the runway and print side of the business. Star in many campaigns at once and command a high salary for a day's work.

There you have it. When someone mentions a 'supermodel', you understand what that means and a benchmark against which to measure.

Something can be said for Victoria's Secret angels being supermodels. However, their pulling power has dropped since the early days. They also don't walk in as many shows nor command high salaries from Victoria's Secret.

A key Victoria's Secret model who doesn't fit this stereotype is Grace Elizabeth. She books multiple campaigns and runway shows, including Versace and Chanel.

Celebrity doesn't traditionally equal supermodel status. However, if a model's celebrity causes them to land multiple covers and book multiple shows in one season, they may qualify for supermodel status.

[originalleftist]

This is sad. And it makes me angry.

Our Flag Means Death was one of HBO's most viewed and critically acclaimed shows. It was a success. Cancelling it after a mere two seasons is not a business decision. It is an ideological one. It is part of a widespread retreat from showing LGBTQ+ content in media in the face of an escalating campaign of censorship and outright genocidal rhetoric from the Republican Party, and part of David Zaslav's larger campaign at HBO to make media that is straight cis white conservative male-centric, as well as a larger effort by the fascist Right to take over and control mass media (see: DeSantis efforts to take control of Disney, Musk buying Twitter and running it into the ground, etc).

I was already considering a boycott of most WB content, once I was done supporting Aquaman II*. This confirms my decision, and I am considering extending it to a total boycott, as well. This follows a long string of bad and outright repellent decisions at WB at its subsidiary companies, including their support for Ezra Miller, their cruel treatment of Amber Heard and attempts to play both sides of the social media witch hunt against her, the gutting of HBO shows, the last-minute cancellation of the Batgirl film in a manner that was extremely disrespectful to its creators and lead and subsequent attempts to justify this by smearing the quality of their work while they had no means to defend themselves, the disgraceful CNN Trump town hall, and now this.

Fuck you WB- I will reconsider my boycott of your products when and if David Zaslav is removed from or resigns his position at your company, and not before.

The only reason I excluded Aquaman from boycott was to support Heard, as there seemed to me little logic in boycotting her film out of solidarity with her.

OFMD has officially been cancelled, and I am once again thinking about all the people in the world who nitpick diverse media to hell and back when it isn't 100% perfect, as if having nothing at all would be preferable.

I'm so fucking tired of good, earnest, diverse media getting held to ridiculous standards by both networks AND fans, and then getting cancelled.

It was supposed to be three seasons. David Jenkins fucking said it was supposed to be three seasons. And then the network dragged its ass on renewing for season 2, and now...no season 3.

FUCK this shit. I'm so tired of media by and for marginalized artists getting fucked over. I'm tired of marginalized people fighting for scraps and then getting the rug whipped out from under us.

Yeah, OFMD isn't the only thing out there. There are other things to go enjoy, for the moment. But the fact that it's the shows that are queer and multicultural that keep getting cancelled is pretty fucking transparent, and I've seen quite a lot of concern from people in the industry about the direction we're headed. The outlook is concerning. It's more important now than ever to support marginalized artists, whether they're making indie art or trying to get something made by a mainstream studio.

Our Flag Means Death. Warrior Nun. One Day At A Time. Willow. Dead End: Paranormal Park. First Kill. Q-Force. The Owl House. Steven Universe. A League of Their Own. Vampire Academy. I could go on, but I don't need to, because there are entire lists that have been curated by news sites: Gay Times, Out, Autostraddle, Pride, Movieweb, Collider.

There's a reason I spend so much time and energy studying things like the Hays Code and the history of censorship. This shit comes in waves, and the only way marginalized artists survive it is through community support, mutual aid, and being really goddamn loud.

So be loud. Make art. Support your fellow artists and the artists you love. We need each other if we're going to weather the storm.

[atouchofireland]

"So. I’m not a random apologist, especially of random men"

yet you actually defend johnny depp, who was found guilty of 12 of the 14 incidents of domestic violence he was being accused of during the UK trial. Judge Mr Justice Nicol said the Sun had proved what was in the article [him being a wife beater] to be "substantially true".

amber lost during the US trial because the entire thing was a mess, the jury wasn't sequestered, the whole anti amber heard campaign was at its peak on social media, depp’s US legal team ran a strategy known as DARVO (deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender) in which depp became the victim and amber the abuser. Also, depp sought to have the case heard in virginia, which has a relatively weak anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) statute, rather than in California, where he and amber both live.

Okay. First of all: The Sun’s opinion is shit to me. As is the UK’s so… write that down.

Secondly, while it was true he was proven to be verbally abusive at times, it was MOSTLY proven that Amber did nothing but lie.

She faked her injuries (he wasn’t even in town). She SHIT in his bed. She lied about giving money from her settlement to charity. Her exes went on record that she was abusive in their relationships (whereas Johnny’s went on record that he wasn’t with them). At the trial she went from laughing at his describing being hit to crying on the stand claiming she never wanted to hurt him.

There’s evidence on top of evidence on top of evidence that she is a manipulative person and she’s tried to keep everything going so that she stays relevant and keeps gaining from the publicity.

The relationship was all in all toxic. But JD was not physically abusive and didn’t deserve any sentence. Whereas AH deserves to be in a psych ward alongside Kanye West.

[a-marvelouzz-time]

funny how the delusional jd supporters on tiktok have never seen the texts johnny sent to paul bettany about amber or even bothered to read all of the evidence she provided but were quick to believe that jack sparrow was a smol innocent bean and that amber was an evil bitch who just wanted to set him up..and when you bring all that up along with his problematic and violent past they are immediately like “But have you seen the trial?” Yes, I have and I also saw the social media smear campaign against Amber. She never stood a chance against him. You mocked a woman who had the courage to testify against her abuser while the whole world was on his side. I hope you all feel deeply ashamed of yourselves. This is why most women don’t speak out. Because no one believes them.

[thesmutgoddess]

I obviously can't stand these Depp stans but the "mutually abusive" crowd is also fucking horrible, acting as if Amber is just as bad as Depp because she defended herself against a man twice her age who beat her and raped her. People want abuse victims to be perfect little saints who just take it and take and even then they end up victim-blaming in the end. And Depp is still abusing Heard by dragging her to the court and spreading lies all over social media. He refuses to let her go.

Amber's testimony was sobering af. I honestly want to scream because this campaign will fuel MRAs and Deppford Wives with their internalized-misogyny for years but the absolute damage and misinformation it is spreading about domestic violence and mutual abuse and mental illness within communities that consider themselves "progressive" is absolutely terrifying.

[justiceamberheard]

On Instagram I saw a post saying look how Johnny is happy because he is slowly winning the case, is that true ?? I am worried Amber will lose

Try and remember, the odds are against Depp. In the US, for a defamation verdict the jury has to UNANIMOUSLY agree that a) what Amber said was untrue, b) that she shared it with malice, and c) that what she said isn't protected by freedom of speech (due to the anti-SLAPP laws). The UK trial was meant to be his easy win as libel laws are so strict there and it was on The Sun to prove that Depp actually was a wifebeater - which they did, easily. In this trial, the burden of proof is on Johnny to prove that he ISN'T... When already have texts, audios, and witnesses proving otherwise.

Social media is a different beast. Depp has already spent millions on his PR smear campaign, and people are all too ready to believe that a woman is lying and they can watch his movies without feeling bad. Remember we've also only seen Johnny's evidence and witnesses so far - it will be interesting to see if the online narrative changes when we hear Heard's testimony.

[papirouge]

If my father was a rapist, he would be dead to me no matter what, not like I'd visit his rapist ass in prison. But yeah, most of the evidence in the depp/heard trial DID point to it being in retaliation.

Totally forgot about that ask but I will never understand how people will die on the hill of arguing someone who straight up admitted starting fight on tape.....acted in retaliation 💀

It is soooo obvious if a man said the exact same thing ("I didn't beat you I hit you" etc) y'all wouldn't be out there arguing that aKtcHualLy dEfEnsiVe violence and shit 💀 The way people tried to find excuses to put up with this trash was disgusting and tbh scrotes are kinda right to start using this shady argument against women.... can't wait to see how the pro Heard feminists who pulled it out left and right gonna find a way to argue back against it now👀

The problem with this whole "retaliation-only" violence narrative is that this very same argument can (and actually IS) used by Depp supporters saying that Depp NEVER been violent against Heard and only defended himself.

Same thing with the way pro Heard drag Depp previous antics & drug problems to show how of an awful person he is.....but then complain when pro Depp do the same with Heard (who also had drug & violence problems in past relationships...). Oh and let's not forget the way of pro Heard do baby her for dating much older Depp when she was in her mid 20s....and then drag Depp over shitty things he did around that same age.... So what's the truth? Are mid 20s ppl too young to make good decisions? If so, why using the awful things he did at that age when he was too young to know better... like Heard did when dating him.. right? 👀

In a defamation case, the trustfulness of the defendant is being investigated, not whether the plaintiff is a "good person" of hasn't done ugly things before with other people. So the way of pro Heard of dragging his history with ex girlfriends (from DECADES ago) who had nothing to do with the case at hand was silly & desperate. Character assassination ≠ evidence. Depp ain't no saint but I'm not surprised Heard lost because there was too much inconsistency in her delivery. She lying about "donating" when it was a "pledge" was ridiculous.... In a defamation case, if people find you unreliable over such small details, there are chances they won't believe you for the rest unfortunately....

I really recommend SWOOP coverage on that case.

I know that pro Heard tried to gaslight women into thinking that EVERY blogger covering this case was a misogynist (which is true to some extent hence why I never cared about males opinion on this case lol) and biased by 🧟‍♀️Depp PR smear campaign🧟‍♂️, but it's really insulting people's intelligence and hypocrite. Especially when pro Heard are as much as keen to rely on social medias and desinformation to push their narrative....Never forget that infamous post trial twitter thread exposing "undisclosed files" showing how aKtcHualLy Depp was the bad guy....... which eventually got proven to being cropped to erase the aggravating elements about Heard + the false narrative surrounding it that was a "Depp stan" paid to get them disclosed" when it was a female LAW PROFESSIONAL who did (idk but ridiculing a female justice professional as a "Depp fan" is kinda misogynist....very ironic coming from the 'pro woman' side 🤡) and I even heard those documents were actually FREE to read but she only paid to print them....(?)....But ofc pro Heard never bothered about this rebuttal bc law of Brandolini ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

[mrsgojosatoru]

The funny thing you are missing is Amber Heard is the abuser, she has repeatedly been violent and instigated fights. You can hear in the audio. There’s plenty of evidence. Even before she was with Depp of her violent streak. She also has some mental health issues that have been brought up. She needs to be taking medication for. It’s actually quite disrespectful for her to claim she’s a victim when she’s the one who’s been abusing and being physically violent with people. It’s all just very sad. She even mocked JD saying no one would believe him if he ever tried to come forward. She is only giving a bad rep and making it harder for those who actually go through these kinds of things. She’s been caught in a lie many many times. It’s very obvious that its premeditated.

And JFK is going to come back any day now and put Trump back in his rightful spot in the presidency.

I'm really sorry school has failed you so much that you fell for an online smear campaign without looking at any of the other evidence. You should work on your media literacy skills.

Amber did what is called reactive violence, this is not uncommon in abuse. Amber did not have the power to abuse her older, heterosexual, wealthy, famous husband. An expert witness just testified the other day about this. How much of the trial have you watched? Or are you just regurgitating an a smear campaign from Adam Waldman in my inbox?

Anyways her partner claimed that report was filled due to homophobia.

Amber was diagnosed with BPD and the defunct histrionic personality by a doctor wined and dined by Depp who talked to her for 12 hours. Other doctors have diagnosed her with PTSD and Battered Wife Syndrome. But I should stress even if Amber does have BPD to use that against her as a sign she is an abuser is gross and ableist.

That audio of her "mocking" D*pp is a clip taken out of context and passed around the internet as part of a smear campaign orchestrated by Adam Waldman. (Who btw has ties to Russians oligarchs who likely spread disinformation about the 2016 election.) The clip cuts off before she goes “Because you’re big, you’re bigger and you’re stronger. And so, when I say that I thought that you could kill me, that doesn’t mean you counter with you also lost your own finger. I’m not trying to attack you here. I’m just trying to point out the fact of why I said call 911. Because you had your hands on me after you threw a phone at my face. And it’s got crazy in the past, and I truly thought I need to stop this madness before I get hurt.” 

You're really going to tell me the pictures, witness testimony, videos of johnny breaking stuff, expert testimony on IPV, the fact that johnny just got caught in a lie about his finger yesterday, the misogynistic text messages, and the fact that a judge ruled in the UK that amber was abused all is just what? A lie?

For that to be true, Amber would have had to been plotting this and faking this since she started dating D*pp. Diary entries, emails, text messages, fake photos, getting people who aren't even her friends anymore to keep lying for her. For what? 7 million dollars? When she was entitled to over 30 million? Like what's the pay off? SO she could have people attacking her every single day, calling her a gold digger and a liar and amber turd, and a psychopath. Like what was the fucking benefit to do all that?

For Johnny to have abused her a man with a history of violence would just have to have used his power to abuse his much younger wife.

Amy Dunne isn't real, Harvey Weinstein is.

Anyways get better soon bestie, and brush up on your media literacy skills. Maybe stop getting all your news from tiktok memes. We've got an election coming up in 2 years and at this rate it'll be so easy for Trump to pull another misinformation campaign on ya'll. I mean that's who's pushing all these anti-amber heard stories on social media anyways.

[arctichotch]

I'd been avoiding all the derpp trial videos showing up on youtube like the plague, but yesterday a lawyer channel uploaded a video "making sense of the verdict" and out of curiosity I clicked on it.

All the comments are some variation of "so what about perjury/Amber lied about being abused under oath"

Like this whole shitshow of a trial was litigation abuse to drag Amber through the mud and all these sheeple think that because the jury that was obviously influenced by all the smear campaigning and social media frenzy, and let's not forget that abuse in and of itself is damn near impossible to get a conviction for in the first place, decided that a proven abuse victim somehow defamed a rich white man by claiming she suffered abuse. And somehow that verdict is proof that she lied about being abused?

Absolute. Bull. Shit.

yep. also the lawyer youtubers are a thing also to bring up into this constant cycle of misinformation and people feeling like they know the law. these “lawyers” have seen an opportunity for easy clicks and money by being pro-depp and are willing to say anything to ensure a steady stream of income and clout. so they feed into the spot of lawyer that the pro-deppies need on their ‘he’s innocent’ bingo card.

like they throw around the objection hearsay joke as if they know what it means, as if it’s not normal to object to hearsay and as if camille vasquez didn’t do the exact same (i would argue even more) to amber during her cx. and the perjury thing is so stupid because where is solid evidence that she perjured herself? i’m yet to see an example. because there is solid evidence to back up her being abused and her stories have been consistent, so no perjury there.

i think i’ve seen maybe 1 or 2 law youtubers actually give an honest take on the trial. but the rest. such as a certain emily d baker i think that’s her name, have been believed like they speak the gospel (even though she’s very very anti-amber and also has said some gross things about breanna taylor.) and some other twitter lawyer i think? is a raging misogynist. and i’ve seen a lot of people say they only watched the trial through these lawyers on youtube and i immediately think that then they do not know anything because they have never formed their own opinions because they’ve been straight away into the pro depp stuff because these “lawyers” want to make money. while any other lawyers or real lawyers in articles and stuff are discounted because they’re not saying what they wanna hear.

johnny has been found to have abused amber time and time again in the court system (in 2 different countries). even this time they had to have found some truth to her allegations for her to have been defamed by him. they continue to baffle me with their pure stupidity.

this trial should never have been live streamed. the jury should have been sequestered. from the get go this trial was balanced against amber. as it usually is against victims of abuse because those abusers are almost always men and powerful men are always going to be believed before women/“weaker” men.