I could (maybe) see that being the case here because of how much attention it got, but in general, that doesn’t make sense to me.
Think about it like this. Imagine I wrote something defamatory about you and posted it all over the internet, making sure to tag your employer. You lose your job over it, sue me for defamation and win the case. By that logic, I could now continue to tag new/prospective employers, essentially making you unemployable.
I have to assume if I did that, you’d be able to sue me again.
But at the same time, if you sue someone for defamation, so far as I know, you don’t sue them for each individual act of defamation…so why would ones that come after the suit be separate from ones before it?
Does losing a defamation case (as the defendant) come with some type of cease and desist or gag order?
Yes you can be sued for each act of defamation. Many related acts may be included in one lawsuit. But each time you defamed that person that it would be a new incident that he could sue for. The trouble is showing that he was further damaged if he is someone like Johnny Depp, you could argue he hasn’t been any further damaged by your accusations. If he is your typical average person and you are interfering with his ability to make a living by telling lies then things will not go well for you.
Amber Heard was sued for multiple incidents of defamation that occurred in one Op-Ed piece. She also counter-sued for multiple incidents of defamation and won on one of those incidents.
Nope, that is not what I’m saying. You are being a little obtuse, no offense. The MeToo movement said always believe the woman, which implies always doubt the accused. No proof needed. That is a very dangerous assumption when it comes to natural justice and it assumes guilty until proven innocent. What if you’re the one being accused and you’re actually innocent? Will the statement that false accusations are rare be enough to satisfy you? Take the accuser seriously, absolutely, but don’t believe anything until you know the truth. That’s how it should be now, in the past and in the future.
I think this is a misrepresentation of the intent of the “believe women” slogan, along similar lines to the misrepresentation that BLM implies other lives don’t matter. The intent is, as you later say, to hear accusers and take them seriously.
However, having seen the stupid opinion piece in Rolling Stone (and similar commentary elsewhere), I have to withdraw my objection that it’s a straw man that more than a fringe minority really think this way. It feels like some kind of bizarre identity politics, where Amber Heard is perceived as having an identity that aligns with the identity of real victims of abuse, and that’s all that matters. Whether she is actually telling the truth is irrelevant.
Amber Heard certainly isn’t a good model for the #MeToo movement, but I do think there is some truth to people pointing out the problems with this trial. The “Johnny Fans” were mega-anti Heard from day one, and have clearly chosen to champion exclusively the bad narratives around Heard, and completely ignore the bad evidence against Depp being a toxic, abusive asshole. I really don’t think an unbiased person can find either of these people to be laudable, so the ones who are omega-fans of Depp and talking about how he’s this super wronged person…I dunno, I don’t think they started from a neutral place.
Of course. MRA’s are all over this, salivating. That’s horrendous, and it certainly will set back the progress of the #MeToo movement.
But the misguided identity politics of that Rolling Stone article that portrays real victims as aligned with Heard is just going to exacerbate this. The #MeToo movement is aligned with real victims and with truth, its principal objective is the exposure of powerful abusers exploiting victims in power-asymmetric relationships. It’s not about all dysfunctional relationships such as the Heard-Depp type where it appears that she dished out at least as much as Depp did, and it’s certainly not aligned with liars.
I mean they have to do with the various articles being written about the trial, which is what I was talking about. Last I checked this thread isn’t titled “Depp - Heard trial, trial discussion only”, maybe I missed that.
And I think that’s unfortunate, but it’s been somewhat emblematic of this all along. The #MeToo movement uncovered and rightly highlighted both the pervasiveness of really shitty behaviors by men towards women, and the poor societal response. But being born with an XX chromosome doesn’t make you a saint, just as there are men with bad motivations and ethics, there are women, and some such women have chosen to latch onto the #MeToo movement in bad ways, and some journalists have empowered that either through active malice or poor judgement.
While it predates the #MeToo movement a bit, I think, there was an infamous Rolling Stone article highlighting a vicious gang rape that occurred on the campus of the University of Virginia. It came out within a short time after it was published the author violated several rules of journalistic ethics in writing the article, and that almost certainly the core “witness” in the article simply lied and made up bad stories. That does a tremendous amount of harm. Everyone knows all kinds of college fraternities are plagued with a sexual assault problem, but a flashy Rolling Stone article highlighting a bad witness who likely was malevolently making things up for nefarious ends, does probably more harm than 10 articles covering real incidents do in good.
Ok, I was just trying to get clear what you were saying following the comment on the trial shown below. This thread is covering the topic broadly, which is fine with me.
I think the other responses in this thread give lie to this notion.
If that is being obtuse, I’ll own it, but somehow, given the majority of posters in this thread (and in society at large) don’t share that opinion, I think I’m in the clear.
Fair enough. I’m just concerned that an accusation is enough to cancel someone in lieu of a fair process. But absolutely all accusations of sexual assault should be taken seriously.
Because she is such an obvious and disgusting liar. At least thats why I can’t stand her, I can’t stand liars, especially when they lie for the specific purpose of hurting someone.
I think she lies for attention. That’s also why she wrote the op-ed. she figure she couldn’t get into any trouble for defamation if she didn’t nMe Johnny (a team of lawyers told her so), and she wanted to join the #MeToo movement as an authority on the subject. And she is an authority—as an abuser herself. I’m sure Johnny’s not completely innocent, but that’s not what this trial was about. She’s not a credible witness and not a particularly good actor either—the jury didn’t buy her strange emotional outpourings and batting her eyelashes at them constantly. Girl needs help. Maybe Elon can bail her out if he likes her so much. And give her enough money to fulfill that pledge to charity she made.
I think much of what she said was true, and it’s supported by considerable contemporaneous evidence. Depp is also clearly a liar, but doesn’t seem to have gotten the hate.
Only the United States among “western” countries makes widespread use of juries in civil trials. The US legal system is considered a joke by most people in Europe, Australia and Canada.
Crown/The People vs John Doe, a jury is a safeguard against tyranny. John Doe vs Jane Doe, a jury trial is a testament to the anti-intellectualism that underpins so much of American culture.
And you’re planning to change this? Or just complain about it? Seems to me the UK court got it wrong in this case. Or perhaps there is some actual evidence you’d like to focus on.