This statement shows me that I made a good choice is giving up on this particular conversation.
On average, corporations are going to be very conservative and take as few chances as possible. The less they can say, the better.
Are we just riding on different tracks or something? I must be missing whatever you are saying unless you really do think that magazine gossip piece is evidence. Are you still talking about the case in England and not that? I just can’t understand what we’re at loggerheads about, there must be something missing here.
Seems to me that would be the very worst thing they could do…
Maybe Depp’s long game is win the case against Heard, so he can try to sue the very deep pockets of the studios that may or may not have canned him over this mess. Somebody said above that Heard probably will never pay a dime but I’d bet these studios would settle quietly to avoid the circus.
But I don’t really follow this kinda stuff, usually…
If he wants to continue his career he won’t sue the studios. But if he wins his case and still can’t get roles then maybe he will sue them. @Acsenray is right, corporations just don’t want to make explicit statements about personnel, or pretty much anything else unless it generates a profit.
Seems to me he wouldn’t have to work another day in his life. Set up for the duration with that sweet Disney money!
In my uneducated opinion, I totally believe he’s an abuser. I think he’s more or less a discreet Charlie Sheen.
Heard is probably a fig bat liar, too. Feh and Phooey on both of them!
I doubt Depp would try to sue a studio. He wants to get his career back, which is going to be a lot harder if he’s filing lawsuits against people who have previously hired him. Plus, I don’t see how he could possibly get a judgement out of a studio - they “fired” him because having him in a movie stopped being a draw, and started being a detriment. The studio wasn’t responsible for audiences turning on Depp, they’re just reacting to the market.
Does he have to work now? I assumed he was already ridiculously wealthy. He’s an abuser of a sort without a doubt, but I’m not convinced one way or the other about hitting her. All I can really be certain about is that in my judgement Heard was not honest on the stand.
Maybe he enjoys his career sufficiently that he wants to work, regardless of his financial situation.
You’re going out of your way to act like the least disputable parts of this case is somehow in dispute–that somehow the companies that are widely known to have fired Depp because of the alleged abuse by Heard. There isn’t any other reason why they would fire him after the revelations and libel suit otherwise. You act like you need a direct statement from them saying exactly why they did it to prove it, rather than allowing all the evidence that exists to show that it is true.
This just isn’t in dispute for those of us who have been following this the actual firings, so it seems more like you’re just trying to find an excuse to defend a silly statement you said before about not knowing if Depp would still be working.
It’s pretty obvious that he would have been, as he was the bankable star of Pirates and was specifically hired to play Grindlewald only to be replaced in the film actually about the character.
Plus you’re arguing pretty strongly, so that means you want what you’re saying to be true. And that seems shitty when you admit you think Heard is a liar. Why then should you want Depp to get no justice?
“Widely known” is not evidence. I’m not trying to determine who has done what to who here, I’m looking at a court case that is not necessarily going to reflect reality. There are a lot of reasons why a studio might not want to use Depp anymore and if it’s going to be evidence in this case they have to come forward and say why that is.
Do they? What are the standards of evidence in a defamation case? Surely they’re not the same as a criminal case. It’s not fraud, it’s not homicide. Historically, what standards of evidence have been successfully used to support the claim that someone’s defamation cost someone else money?
In The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court held that for a publicly-known figure to succeed on a defamation claims, the public-figure plaintiff must show that the false, defaming statements was said with “actual malice.” The Sullivan court stated that “actual malice” means that the defendant said the defamatory statement “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” The Sullivan court also held that when the standard is actual malice, the plaintiff must prove actual malice by “clear and convincing” evidence, rather than the usual burden of proof in a civil case, which is the preponderance of the evidence standard. On this point, the precise language the Sullivan court uses is that the plaintiff must show “the convincing clarity which the constitutional standard demands.”
Bolding mine. So, it needs to be “clear and convincing” evidence in a defamation case involving a public figure, as in Depp’s case.
In this case the ‘actual malice’ standard isn’t the hard part. If Heard is lying, she’s obviously making the defamatory statments with knowledge that they’re false. The hard part is establishing that she’s lying in the first place.
Yes, there must be proof enough to establish that her statements of fact were false, everything proceeds from there.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I’m assuming that establishing damages is separate from establishing defamation. If they find that Heard defamed Depp, the questions becomes did it cost him 50$ or 50 million.
Tripolar was talking about proving that the studios fired him because of Heard’s statements and disputing that ‘widely known’ counted as evidence, I’m asking what counts as evidence for that part of the decision.
I do kinda wanna know who shit the bed.
A jury can infer the reasons. It does not need to be explicit (e.g. a signed contract / clear statement from Disney, etc.). Being that he was in the roles prior, is not in the roles now, and some testimony from witnesses as the abuse/Heard article being the reason should be sufficient to uphold a verdict for Depp.
While we’d need to see the instructions the jury gets, generally you can also be damaged in other ways such as mental anguish. For example, Depp stated he is sad he no longer gets to be Jack Sparrow (in the movie or otherwise - like when he went to the children’s hospital dressed as Jack Sparrow - he can’t do that anymore) - that could be sufficient evidence to award him mental anguish damages. The amount is not set out in an invoice or contract, just whatever a jury thinks is reasonable if they believe Depp suffered harm (based on his say so, and/or any other testimony).
I’m not saying whether I think the above is believable or not, or meets the standard or not, just that there is some evidence on which a jury could infer some damage.
Personally, I think Depp is just fine with $1 in damages. To get that, it’d mean Heard was lying. That in and of itself would help to restore Depp’s reputation. I do not think the damages/money is the point.
With all this said, these types of defamation of a public figure cases are extremely difficult to win. I don’t think Depp will legally win, but maybe he was just out to change the narrative, or at least provide a counter-narrative.
The rate at which someone can burn through a truly enormous pile of money can be genuinely shocking. I generally assume that any actor, musician, or sports celebrity who isn’t actively working is about five years out from being dead broke. Depp, for example, was reportedly spending five figures on wine a month, and bought himself a private island. That sort of life style will deplete any but the absolute biggest fortunes real quick, especially if the paychecks have stopped.
That…doesn’t actually increase my sympathy for his case.