Again–you’re choosing a side in a marital dispute in which both sides by all accounts were destructive assholes. To me that isn’t like watching some villainous person get their comeuppance, it’s like being a spectator to a divorce involving two shitty people and for some vague reason deciding you’re going to strongly support one side.
And apparently you are still not interacting with this board. Clearly you have not read the thread, since this ridiculous fantasy of a Board consensus that Heard is a heroic icon of social justice was manufactured from whole cloth in your imagination.
Posts like this remind us of what we were missing.
Dammit, that was much funnier.
It might be worth reading, for people who are convinced Johnny was entirely innocent of any wrongdoing, the full judgement by Justice Andrew Nicol in the UK trial–this is a comprehensive legal document laying out all of the exact allegations made by Heard, and his analysis of their merit. Note, that, as far as I can tell, at least a significant part of this was not adjudicated in the American trial.
Microsoft Word - draft trial judgment as distributed with corrections.docx (judiciary.uk)
There’s definitely what I’d call a big open gap of “reasonable doubt” in all of it–if Depp were on trial for criminal charges, but it is nothing close to the sort of “exoneration” that “team Depp” people seem to suggest. This is a weird case in that there seems to be ample evidence both of these people are narcissistic, drug abusing, emotionally unstable rich people who live in a cocoon of privilege. I am deeply confused why anyone is taking sides in this sordid affair.
And lest anyone think that this spectacle hasn’t had a real-world effect: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/amber-heard-johnny-depp-verdict-metoo-trial-1361356/
Jesus, that’s a terrible article.
It quite correctly highlights the chilling effect that this trial could have, if people approach it with incorrect premises and draw the wrong conclusions. It draws parallels between the stories of real victims and Heard’s fabrications, inexplicably ignoring the fact that many of Heard’s allegations were discredited. It almost explicitly suggests that we must either believe everyone or believe nobody. If this article is typical, I’ll have to withdraw my view that “believe all women with complete suspension of critical faculties” is a straw man. The #MeToo movement was not premised on that, and the existence of one liar is not “the death of the whole movement”.
And “Men always win”? What, apart from all the real abusers who have been exposed and discredited in the last few years?
If you want to undermine the #MeToo movement, this hyperbolic all-or-nothing nonsense is the way to do it.
It’s not great, I agree, but there was enough good meat that I thought it worth sharing.
Have they been permanently discredited? Weinstein was, but who else? Exposure doesn’t seem to matter if they’re still supported and keep working.
Thinking about this case has me feeling that, regardless of the facts in this particular case, these sorts of lawsuits shouldn’t be allowed. The evidence that Heard was abused may not have been overwhelming, but it’s never going to be possible to prove definitively that she wasn’t abused. And there’s no question that this verdict could have a chilling effect on women coming forward with legitimate claims of abuse.
I am leaning toward thinking that women who want to accuse men of sexual abuse, in the absence of sufficient evidence to justify criminal charges, should be allowed to do so and take their chances in the court of public opinion if they so desire, without fear of being sued for libel. The harm done to innocent men who are deprived of the opportunity to have an official judgment vindicating them seems to me much less than the harm done to women making truthful claims who end up having to pay money to their abuser.
Off the top of my head, Kevin Spacey, Matt Lauer, Danny Masterson, Bryan Singer. I’d also add Bill Cosby - his rape conviction being overturned notwithstanding, nobody’s going to be running tearful retrospectives when this creep finally dies.
Granted, two of those guys lost their careers because they sexually assaulted males, so they’re not exactly great arguments about people taking women seriously.
Yes, when I said discredited I meant as in “won’t work again unless they do serious repentance.” Should have been clearer. As as far as Spacey goes, he’s gotten another movie role, but I suppose there’s no bad publicity and it’s just a small film. Take what I can get.
A quick Google turns up this New York Times article listing 200. I don’t know how it let me read it; maybe they give you some amount of free articles per month and June just started? If so, don’t waste a free view on this like I did.
Mostly executive positions so unlikely we’d know the names, though I did recognize the name Les Moonves.
Also Al Franken.
Ah, thank you. That is an interesting read.
No, I understood that part, and answered accordingly, although I wasn’t aware that Spacey had a film coming up.
I take it back, he’s getting just what he deserves.
Pure insanity. Johnny Depp is not all men and Amber heard is not all women. Every case should be decided on it’s own merits. I don’t see any reason to believe this one wasn’t. Amber Heard is clearly a mean spirited liar of the kind that Donald Trump is. She will never admit she lied, and she will continue to manipulate and betray people just like she did to Depp and her friends. That’s her, not any other woman. Johnny Depp is clearly a spoiled aging sot who has cavorted through life throwing away millions of dollars. He was too lazy and self-absorbed to get out of a marriage while it went all the way down the drain and into the sewer. That’s him and no other man. I just don’t get why anybody wants to associate themselves or any worthy cause with either one of those lame ass losers.
I’d probably re-phrase that first part of that statement.
Amber Heard very likely has a shit-ton of money by normal-person standards. Absolutely a multi-millionaire. Those net worth sites aren’t worth much, but she has disclosed some of her salaries (for the Marvel films) and they amount to a lot of cash and that is aside from her other work. For all the talk of Depp being a far bigger and richer star (and he is), Heard has been a little bit of an “it girl” lately and has made pretty decent bank herself - she absolutely qualifies as a successful professional movie actor and nobody in that category is poor. What she may not have on hand is the entire settlement amount as per the second part of your statement.
Heard won several million dollars in the divorce settlement - some of the judgement against her here might consist of just cancelling the outstanding balance on the divorce settlement, assuming there’s still a significant amount left.
One commentator noted that the Heard winning one count will make a possible appeal more difficult. The appeals court is less likely to accept an argument cherry picking the result.
I’m not clear on all the details, but they made a point of the fact that Heard didn’t pay any, or much, money to the causes she has promised to her divorce settlement to. It sounded like she had the money already but didn’t pay the money.
IANAL, but an attorney discussing this on YouTube said that deformation requires not only for something to not be true but for there to be actual damages, and anything further said would not likely cause further harm.