There’s no way that would happen. Not for very long, anyway.
That doesn’t sound different than 75% of click-bait Youtube video titles
New tech DESTROYS last generation!
Did this man CHEAT eating giant burrito
This video game build MELTS ALL competition
AMAZING weird STICK I found in BACKYARD
I suspect it has mostly to do with wanting clicks and Youtube revenue versus breathless excitement from the creators. I’m sure everyone here would say they’d rather see “Reasoned and measured analysis to court case”, but the advertisers know what titles people click on most.
I mean, he has been exiled from the industry, but that’s because he starred in a series of expensive flops.
Ah, that’s true. I more meant as the result of bad behavior. Perhaps I’m too cynical.
I’m your opposite here. I wish I could live his “excessive lifestyle”.
This saga has a significant backdrop of online conflict between the “always believe women” faction and the “women make shit up” faction.
And lest we are tempted to assume the latter group are always men, there’s a depressingly high population of abused women who disbelieve other women because their stories don’t seem as credible or relatable as what they themselves went through. “Your weak story is making people misbelieve my very credible story” in other words.
Personally I don’t know who to believe. I can’t make much sense out of raw evidence because I don’t have the background, but all the contextualized reporting seems 100% filtered through biased factional reporting. You look at one piece of evidence that seems like a smoking gun, and then eight other pieces that make it seem like not a big deal.
All I can say is I hope the jury got it right, because if they screwed up, it’s a terrible day for domestic violence survivors.
This. That recording of her saying “no one is going to believe you because you are a man” is going to be used by misogynists’ in perpetuity to dismiss women.
I don’t think it’s good to frame it that way. The existence of an “always believe women” faction (beyond a tiny number of nutjobs) is a straw man invented by the “women make shit up” faction. It’s granting their false premise.
I’m glad you added the disclaimer because I work with one of them. It’s exhausting restraining my eyerolls when she talks.
Corrections welcome, but my limited understanding is that the UK court ruling was based in large part (or entirely) on the article Amber Heard wrote, which is the same article that the US court just ruled was false and defamatory.
Again, corrections welcome, but if that were the case, that would explain why nobody is focusing on the UK ruling.
Blackstone’s Ratio:
“ It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
Let’s tweak that:
“It is better that ten men who’ve beat their wives to a pulp and raped them with wine bottles escape than that one innocent suffer.”
You can make the original quote and everyone will nod in agreement, but when a specific outrage is alleged that’s an unacceptable statement.
Is it common now that courts in the US will allow the cross examination and testimony to be videotaped in the courtroom?
It varies considerable. Almost never in Federal Court, but some state courts allow it. More since pandemic restrictions designed to limit the number of people in the courtroom. King County (Seattle) courts generally allow cameras, but it’s still up to the judge in each case. Of course, in most cases there is no interest in bringing in cameras. I think I’ve only had cameras in court for two trials in my whole career.
ETA: Some courtrooms use video as the official record of the proceedings. You can get a DVD of each day’s testimony from the clerk for a modest fee. I’ve done a lot of trials with this type of system.
Thank you!
That raises the question as to whether Amber Heard herself is a misogynist for expressing that same sentiment. Or, is it possible that even some non-misogynists also see it that way?
I don’t think this is true.
Firstly, many people say outright that false accusations of abuse almost never happen (and use that to assess the likelihood in specific cases). The difference between almost never and never is insignificant.
Second, even among people who don’t explicitly own up to “always believe women”, there are many who as a practical matter will believe women 100% of the time.
Would you be able to cite that the “always believe women” faction is much smaller than the “women always lie” faction? Because this seems like a very subjective judgment that is almost entirely determined by what media one consumes and how one is motivated to interpret it. And to be candid, there seems to be no shortage of both actual nutjobs and contrived strawmen all around.
I make no such assessment, I just observe that both factions exist online, and both seem more or less equally noisy to me, and they generate so much noise that it’s really hard to tease out the signal.
Many people may say that, but it comes up a lot more often in divorce and child custody cases. And the difference between almost never and never is significant, it’s the difference between something and nothing.
However, in this case the only thing that mattered was the actual provable behavior of these two pathetic humans.
I think it’s probably safe to assume the main reason is because they’re both (one considerably more than the other) celebrities. If Johnny Depp got into a car accident it would on TMZ within an hour or two.
But more so than that, people are curious and nosy. Honestly, you could put a random couple’s DV trial on the air and people would tune in day after day and even choose sides.
I don’t think that’s true, at least as far as public reaction goes.
There are a lot of people who are very upset about this verdict and believe that it demonstrates the misogyny and patriarchy of society, or things along those lines.
How people assess and interpret evidence (and what they consider “actual provable behavior”) in a specific case depends very much on their general attitudes as to the underlying issues involved.