#Depp V Heard

[anthroxlove]

[killjoyfem]

Blake Lively is currently suing Justin Baldoni for sexually harassing her during the making of “It Ends With Us”, and the response to it is already deeply disappointing, to say the least.

Congratulations to everyone who keeps falling for misogynistic smear campaigns against women and going to battle to defend the abusive men orchestrating them. It is always “believe victims” until it’s a woman you dislike.

[originalleftist]

Over half of anti-Heard tweets were bots or paid trolls, many linked to Saudi government bots.

"According to an investigation by Tortoise Media, which examined more than one million tweets, more than 50 per cent of anti-Heard messages in the run-up to the 2022 defamation case were "inauthentic' - either from automated "bot" accounts or people hired to attack the actress."

"Bradley Hope, author of a book on Bin Salman, told the podcast that the pro-Depp tweets emanating from Saudi Arabia appear to be produced by "flies", a name for Saudi bot accounts."

"An intelligence professional who tracks online disinformation campaigns, said there was only a "0.1 per cent chance" that the hate directed at Heard was from genuine Depp fans.

The investigation also claims that bot networks in Thailand and Spain tweeted large numbers of pro-Depp messages."

"...more than 100 Twitter accounts sent 1,000 identical messages at exactly the same time to any company that had worked with Heard, reading: "This brand supports domestic violence against men."'

"The makers of the podcast argue that the criticism of Heard could have affected the jury in the 2022 US defamation trial which found in favour of Depp."

"So, if you couldn't tell the difference between a real-life Johnny Depp fan and a bot in 2022, then you probably won't be able to tell a Russian troll from a US election official in 2024. And that represents a serious problem for the security of our democracies."-Alexi Mostrous, presenter of the podcast.

"Johnny Depp and the Saudi Embassy did not respond to Tortoise's request for comment."

[feministfang]

[radiobyers]

i live in a country where i can call johnny depp a wife beater & face no consequence because his abuse was proven true in court.

i live in a world where johnny depp is idolised & able to run a successful smear campaign against a woman whom he purposefully sued in the state of virginia because of their weak anti-SLAPP laws.

every move made against amber has been strategically done to isolate her. the general public has helped him continue his abuse. he gets to continue his career, she gets the blame for his behaviour.

stop believing “facts” you’ve read on social media. keep up with trials yourself & educate yourself on the use of propaganda. don’t participate in someone else’s smear campaign.

[transfaguette]

I hated about the way people within my own circles treated the Depp v Heard trial(s). People turned it into this "men can be abused too!" thing and latched onto Depp as a victim (as did Much of the Public because of violent misogyny and Depp's popularity) and literally just refused to believe anything else because it did not fit this agenda. It was extremely sickening and disappointing. It wasn't even a domestic abuse trial, Depp was suing Heard for defamation for writing about her experiences, in an article that didn't even NAME him. The highly publicized nature of the trial, almost certainly a bid to help Depp via his reputation and status. I did not watch a single bit of the trial. I frankly, do not really care what went on in their relationship, I don't "stan" either one. They are complete strangers to me!!! My opinion on their relationship or character means nothing!! But joining in on the gross, misogynistic pile-on on women who speak out because it suits an agenda, no matter if that woman was lying or not, no matter if that agenda is righteous, is gross. You turned your eyes from misogyny because it helped you. It doesn't help ANY victim of abuse when you do this.

[pansexual-lilychen]

everyone excited for vision quest after the agatha all along finale meanwhile i don’t think paul bettany should be employed ever again

[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.

[geographerdose]

Kevin Weeks (Black Mass, 2015):

“… they’ll let you take a shit in the middle of the floor, if that’s what you want to do.”

This is a Johnny Depp movie— life imitates art amirite? Amber Heard and the infamous 💩

[anthroxlove]

[faefearing]

my notes on the irony epidemic

it feels like no one takes anything seriously anymore. don’t get me wrong, jokes are funny!! we need humour, especially in the political climate we are in!!! but anyone would be concerned with the surge of Jokes. Constantly. Everywhere.

i first noticed it with the depp v heard trials a couple years ago. instead of looking at the evidence provided, there were thousands of videos circling for months taking the piss out of amber heards experiences.

over time, it’s become the norm: a detachment and ignorance to things a lot of the people have never experienced. with ethel cain’s music going more mainstream, there’s also been a surge of people who ignore the intended message and raw vulnerability that she conveys in her art.

what i see is a cultural disillusionment, a hyper-detachment that’s permeating the way we live. the long form, thoughtful media and culture that encourages reflection and critical analysis is being lost, and instead being replaced by instant gratification and shallow engagement. this has led to some serious desensitisation of experiences that they have never lived through - mocking abuse, rape, incest, turning it all into a joke, as if it’s just another part of engaging in content.

where has empathy gone? or has showing vulnerability and authenticity become something to fear because it’s too real, too uncomfortable?

this isn’t just about humour - it’s about the loss of sincerity and connection in a world where we desperately need both. i think that the saying “art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable” is truer than ever. we don’t need more punchlines. we need passion.

[originalleftist]

Something I dearly wish more people, especially those who identify with progressivism and the Left, understood is Intersectionality.

I don't claim to be any kind of expert on the subject myself, and I have my own biases and privilege, so take my position for whatever its worth, and feel free to dissect it. But very basically, "Intersectionality is a sociological analytical framework for understanding how groups' and individuals' social and political identities result in unique combinations of discrimination and privilege. Examples of these factors include gender, caste, sex, race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, religion, disability, height, age, and weight. These intersecting and overlapping social identities may be both empower and oppressing. However little good-quality quantitative research has been done to support or undermine the practical uses of intersectionality." (Wikpedia)

Put very simply, its about how different aspects of someone's identity affect how they are privileged and disadvantaged/discriminated against- and, crucially, how one can be both privileged in certain ways, and discriminated against in others.

I had heard the term previously, and probably had a vague sense of what it meant, but I believe that, as with so many things, I first started to really realize its importance, and the deficiency of awareness of intersectionality, while following the Depp v Heard trial (full disclosure: I actually used Depp v Heard as an example of intersectionality on a college anthropology exam, and I will undoubtably repeat some things from that here, though I do not have the exam on-hand to refer to).

One of the recurring arguments raised by certain Depp supporters (presumably those sympathetic to the Left, or perhaps more astute at manipulating the Left) was basically that Amber Heard did not deserve support because she was wealthy/famous/privileged. A recurring line (and example of how, despite being deeply rooted in Right-wing MRA/Incel ideology, "the Justice for Johnny Depp" crowd coopted Left-wing and social justice rhetoric) was to mock and dismiss Heard's obvious distress as "white woman tears".

Of course, this term is typically used to call out white fragility/defensiveness around race, and white women who play the victim against Black people- not a white woman who is in actual distress because she's being forced to publicly relive r*pe trauma in court before a jeering mob of her r*pist's fans. And the entire narrative ignores that Depp enjoyed far more power and privilege than Heard did (those who claim otherwise are generally adopting the misogynist "Men's Rights Activist" narrative that women are actually the privileged gender in society and are always believed, while constantly making false accusations against men- which was probably their whole point). It also means ignoring that Heard was repeatedly and viciously targeted based on her gender, her sexual orientation as an openly queer woman, and her mental health. Depp was subject to some ableist attacks as well, for example, in that he was stigmatized for the illness of addiction, but Heard, as with most things, got by far the worst of it.

One could and should also point out that much of what was directed at Heard and her supporters-the censoring of her freedom of expression, harassment and death threats against her and her child, abuse of the legal system, etc, as well as the horrific and life-threatening abuse inflicted against her by Depp and previously found to be true by a UK court-would be unjustified against anyone, regardless of their relative privilege, at least assuming one believes in universal rights or the rule of law. But the argument of privilege on Heard's part is itself selective, and misleading.

Now, flash forward to October 2023, for case study number 2. Among the arguments of the anti-semitic Left since October 7th have been that Israelis (primarily Jewish citizens of the world's only Jewish state) do not deserve sympathy or consideration, and that anything that is done to them is justified as "resistance", because they are the oppressors- they hold the power and privilege. Often, this has manifested as attacks not only on Israel and Israelis, but one anyone who supports them- and anyone who is Jewish. Again, one could and should reject outright that atrocities such as murder, r*pe, slavery, and torture are justified against anyone, for any reason. But the premise of the argument, that Israel holds the power and privilege, is again over-simplistic. Certainly, Israel has more economic and military power than Hamas, Gaza, or Palestine. But on a world-wide scale, the Jewish people are still a very small, marginalized, and vulnerable group- and would likely be far more so without a nation capable of defending itself. Jews amount to less than half a percent of the world's population, and the vast majority live in one of two countries- Israel and the United States. Further, regardless of the power disparity that exists between Israel and Gaza or Palestine, it should be self-evidently preposterous to argue that a random Israeli civilian, confronted by a Hamas gunman and facing imminent murder, r*pe, abduction, or all of the above, is in a position of power. But all of this is frequently ignored to try to justify bigotry, terrorism, and collective punishment of Israelis- and, very often, Diaspora Jews as well.

One should also consider how many Leftists have reacted to the war in Ukraine. Ukraine is unquestionably the smaller, less powerful party in a war with Russia, and it is unquestionably the victim of aggression. So, how did the Putinist/Tankie wing of the Left justify supporting Russia over Ukraine? Easy- they just treat Ukraine as an extension of NATO/the US, rather than as a sovereign nation, and argue that NATO aggression and imperialism caused the war, which Russia is then the underdog resisting (this of course is basically a Kremlin propaganda narrative).

Now, let's jump forward to the present, where Joe Biden's political future is being imperilled by relentless attacks asserting, on little to no solid evidence, that he is both mentally and physically unfit to run for or serve as President. One would assume that if any person on Earth is immune to systemic discrimination, it's Joe Biden. He is a fairly wealthy, heterosexual, cisgendered, white, Christian, American man. He basically won Privilege Bingo. And he currently holds the single most powerful position on the planet- one which just became frighteningly more powerful with the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling (albeit a ruling they obviously only made for Trump's benefit, confident that Biden would not abuse the immense and utterly unprecedented power that they have bestowed upon him).

And yet, as we saw with Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama before him, even climbing to the heights of political power does not shield a marginalized identity from attack. Hillary Clinton is a former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, and was a major party's nominee for President. But she was subjected to relentless attacks, some obviously misogynist, and it certainly played a role in her defeat and the election of Donald Trump- a serial r*pist who was taped boasting about being able to get away with grabbing women "by the pussy". Barrack Obama won the Presidency twice- but not without a widespread movement denying that he was even a real American, allegations that he was a "secret Muslim" (which would not be disqualifying for the Presidency in any case), and a backlash that also likely contributed to the election of Trump, a virulent racist.

Biden, as a white man, has advantages that Obama and Clinton never did. But Biden too can still be attacked and treated unfairly based on his association with various marginalized identities. As soon as he showed signs of age and frailty, he was subject to the relentless contempt of our society for the geriatric and the disabled. Add to that his life-long stutter. Granted, Biden has far more power than most to resist such attacks, so it would probably be a big stretch to say that he is a victim of systemic oppression. But these attacks, using ableism and ageism to declare someone unfit for the Presidency, are ultimately also attacks on the dignity of all older and disabled people (there's also a good bit of racism and misogyny underlying it, as at least some of the hyperbole and fear-mongering over Biden's age and fitness is clearly driven by fear that a Black woman might succeed him- see in particular the recent piece in The Washington Post calling for Biden to stay in but replace VP Harris).

So what is my point in all of this? It is that peoples' identities are complex, and that just because someone is privileged-even immensely privileged-in certain ways does not mean that they cannot be underprivileged, marginalized, or oppressed and discriminated against in others. And that if the Left/progressives as a whole had as solid a grasp of intersectionality, and its importance, as they do of privilege, they would be far less likely to fall so easily for fascist psy-ops trying to convince Leftists that no, this whole class of people are okay to persecute because they're actually Oppressors, in order to divide and conquer us all.

Because the thing is: privilege is real. So is systemic discrimination. Certain people and groups of people do have unfair advantages over others based on their identities and how they are perceived, which contribute to bias and must be accounted for and rectified. But this is also true: everybody has multiple different identities. Everybody has ways in which they are advantaged over someone else, and ways in which they are disadvantaged. Some people have far more things that fall on one side of the scale than the other. But you can find something about just about anyone that gives them an unfair advantage over someone else. So if you focus only on that, and define someone's worthiness to receive sympathy accordingly, then you can reframe anyone as the Oppressor, and therefore unworthy of sympathy, and deserving of anything that is done to them.

Of course, one might also cynically argue that many people WANT to fall for that ploy, because it gives them an excuse to engage in harassment, bullying, and abuse; to join in the mob, while pretending to be righteous. I might also observe that the Left's fixation on determining who is worthy of sympathy based on who holds the most power essentially commits them ideologically to always being on the losing side- should any Leftist ever actually succeed in achieving major political success, they will become part of "the establishment", and immediately suspect. And I wonder how large a role this sort of thinking plays in Leftist third party "purity politics", and the infamous "circular firing squad".

[astrangerinthestreet]

A complete timeline of the relationship between Amber Heard and Johnny Depp

[futurewriter2000]

I know this has happened a long time ago- like a really long time ago but I had just watched The Depp v Amber trial on Netflix and- well, I had always been Johnny's fan, no doubt about that. I also knew he had a drug and alcohol addiction. I was aware of that but I always believed in his goodness.

After I just watched this trial, I just realised that Johnny Depp isn't who I thought he was despite his addiction. I firmly believe that both were abusive in the whole marriage and I do admit Amber did a lot of faulty things but as I continued to see the trial go on- I just realised that people rooted for Johnny Depp, based on their love for the actor playing in their favorite movies. I think not a lot of people who grew up in an abusive household would understand how traumatising just the yelling is. When the person who is supposed to love you raises their voice at you- when you see them drunk or drugged. And the way people just disregarded Amber's claims by saying "I don't know." like you don't know. You drank champagne with him and then you don't know whether he was passed out when they landed on the airplane. "I don't know-" what the upmost bullshit.

Just the concept of having your trial televised is another form of abuse coming from Johnny Depp. Now, you don't have to be beaten shitless to be abused. Mental abuse, for somebody who had grown up in an abusive family home like Amber did, is just as triggering and traumatising. The only story that really did prove that Johnny Depp was abusive was the witness stand of her sister and that was when I knew it was true. He was physical with Amber. And the further you look into the trial, the more you realise how set up it is. The texts from Amber's side weren't allowed to be put in as evidence. Okay,... why because they were going to prove that Johnny is guilty? And the texts with Paul Bettany- like I grew up with an alcoholic. Those weren't texts of dark humor. That's the fucking start of abuse.

So yes, I do believe Johnny is guilty. I do believe Amber isn't innocent either... the thing that pissed me off was how quickly people turned like fucking sheep- mocked the sole concept of domestical abuse- choosing sides, and not for once thought- oh Johnny Depp, the great actor of our favorite movies, isn't the abusive alcoholic. No, the woman HE married and put on television for a world-wide humiliation (which no other celebrity ever did), tempered with witnessess (because damn sure I know that's true)... no he is as innocent as a flower.

Fuck this pissed me off. He isn't innocent and people had no right to be so fucking excited for a domestic violance trial. When it is a big deal. I would know because my dad sure made false acusations and persuaded half of the family to lie against my mother. And my mother, who was beaten and belitteled on the trial, lost the trial. She was innocent, he was not. Because people lie... people act.

[bloembedgum1]

Can't believe people are back on this