My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

[Bartmanhomer]

Ok, I've been watching Youtube videos and hearing about Johnny Depp and Amber Heard Domestic Violence situation. Some people say that Johnny Depp is the abuser, other people are saying that Amber Heard is the abuser. It's he said, she said situation and they've been going to each other throats for years now. In my honest opinion, I say both of them are at fault and they need to be held accountable and punished for their actions. I heard that Warner Bros. removed Johnny Depp from the upcoming Aquaman 2 movie. They need to remove Amber Heard from the Aquaman 2 movie as well also because I don't think she should get a free pass because she's not innocent. Also just to let everybody know I'm not taking sides from either party. Those are my thoughts.

[JadedDM]

Minor correction, but Depp wasn't removed from Aquaman 2, but rather from the third Fantastic Beasts film (although he's still getting paid the full amount, last I heard).

[Bartmanhomer]

Minor correction, but Depp wasn't removed from Aquaman 2, but rather from the third Fantastic Beasts film (although he's still getting paid the full amount, last I heard).

Really? He wasn't removed from Aquaman 2 but he was removed from Fantastic Beasts 3 movie? I didn't know that.

[The Glyphstone]

Johnny Depp was not removed from Aquaman 2 because he was never in Aquaman 2.

[Bartmanhomer]

Johnny Depp was not removed from Aquaman 2 because he was never in Aquaman 2.

Huh? I don't get It. :confused:

[JadedDM]

Depp was never going to be in Aquaman 2 in the first place; at least, not that I ever heard anywhere.

[Bartmanhomer]

Depp was never going to be in Aquaman 2 in the first place; at least, not that I ever heard anywhere.

Well, I heard something different from what you said.

[JadedDM]

Fair enough. Where did you hear it?

[Bartmanhomer]

Fair enough. Where did you hear it?

Memes, Facebook, and Youtube.

[Peelee]

Memes, Facebook, and Youtube.

Those are probably not the most reliable sources.

[Keltest]

Those are probably not the most reliable sources.

Hey now, Memes are sometimes based on reality.

[Peelee]

Hey now, Memes are sometimes based on reality.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/NeedyJitteryGoshawk-max-1mb.gif

[LibraryOgre]

Now, Amber Heard was in Aquaman, and there were calls for her to be removed from Aquaman 2.

[Keltest]

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/NeedyJitteryGoshawk-max-1mb.gif

Search the Internet Peelee; you know it to be true!

[Vinyadan]

There is an important factor that I haven't seen brought up yet, and it's that JK Rowling is, according to her own definition, a domestic abuse survivor. That Depp ended up losing his part in a Harry Potter movie is no big surprise, after a trial was held in England about whether Depp could be accurately described as a wife beater.

[Pirate ninja]

There is an important factor that I haven't seen brought up yet, and it's that JK Rowling is, according to her own definition, a domestic abuse survivor. That Depp ended up losing his part in a Harry Potter movie is no big surprise, after a trial was held in England about whether Depp could be accurately described as a wife beater.

I think that there had been calls for Depp to be fired when Heard's allegations first surfaced and it was Rowling who resisted them. Once the court made its finding it was pretty inevitable that Depp would lose his job.

[Bartmanhomer]

Those are probably not the most reliable sources.

I can tell your serious now and what can I tell that can be a reliable source most of the time.

[Peelee]

I can tell your serious now and what can I tell that can be a reliable source most of the time.

Major reputable news organizations. The actual news parts, not the talking heads and personalities.

[Bartmanhomer]

Major reputable news organizations. The actual news parts, not the talking heads and personalities.

Yes. Anyway, I'm not taking any sides to see who's innocent and who's the guilty party. I say both of them are guilty and I'm being neutral in this case.

[Vinyadan]

I think that there had been calls for Depp to be fired when Heard's allegations first surfaced and it was Rowling who resisted them. Once the court made its finding it was pretty inevitable that Depp would lose his job.
I tried taking a look, and it seemed like the whole production (including JKR) was OK with Depp back then. Her role on the expulsion seems limited, for now, at not fighting against WB's decision. So my theory is, at the very least, unsubstantiated.

Depp still got his 10 millions, which could offer some consolation. I can understand WB wanting to avoid controversy, since 2's shaky writing is already going to reflect negatively on 3's box-office performance (YMMV).

[druid91]

I tried taking a look, and it seemed like the whole production (including JKR) was OK with Depp back then. Her role on the expulsion seems limited, for now, at not fighting against WB's decision. So my theory is, at the very least, unsubstantiated.

Depp still got his 10 millions, which could offer some consolation. I can understand WB wanting to avoid controversy, since 2's shaky writing is already going to reflect negatively on 3's box-office performance (YMMV).

Eh, Depp's parts of 2 were pretty much the only good parts though. The rest was basically a movie version of HP Fanfiction.

[137beth]

I heard from a major reputable meme that Johnny Depp and Amber Heard were both fired from the upcoming Order of the Stick movie.
(The same major reputable meme also said Pelee can't be trusted in determining what sources are reliable.)


Johnny Depp was not removed from Aquaman 2 because he was never in Aquaman 2.
Well yea, he was removed from production before the movie was actually made, hence he was never in it.

[dps]

Ok, I've been watching Youtube videos and hearing about Johnny Depp and Amber Heard Domestic Violence situation. Some people say that Johnny Depp is the abuser, other people are saying that Amber Heard is the abuser. It's he said, she said situation and they've been going to each other throats for years now. In my honest opinion, I say both of them are at fault and they need to be held accountable and punished for their actions. I heard that Warner Bros. removed Johnny Depp from the upcoming Aquaman 2 movie. They need to remove Amber Heard from the Aquaman 2 movie as well also because I don't think she should get a free pass because she's not innocent. Also just to let everybody know I'm not taking sides from either party. Those are my thoughts.

Are you saying that they should be removed just from those 2 specific movies or that they should never be allowed to be in any movies ever again?

[The Glyphstone]

If we remove Johnny Depp from Aquaman 2, we should also remove Amber Heard from Fantastic Beasts 3. That would be truly fair.

[Bartmanhomer]

Are you saying that they should be removed just from those 2 specific movies or that they should never be allowed to be in any movies ever again?

I'm saying they should be removed from those 2 specific movies which are very fair.

[Fyraltari]

I'm saying they should be removed from those 2 specific movies which are very fair.

Why these movies in particular?

[Keltest]

Why these movies in particular?

Why remove them at all, for that matter? Cant we just let them do their jobs without punishing them beyond what the judicial system has decided?

[Bartmanhomer]

Why these movies in particular?


Why remove them at all, for that matter? Cant we just let them do their jobs without punishing them beyond what the judicial system has decided?

Because they don't want any controversy from Johnny and Amber knowing their abusive history together.

[Keltest]

Because they don't want any controversy from Johnny and Amber knowing their abusive history together.

If thats the case, they/you seem to have misjudged things then, because there is absolutely controversy about the decision to remove him.

(Its unclear to me right now if youre speaking of your own opinion directly or are simply agreeing with their decision and trying to explain their reasoning.)

[Bartmanhomer]

If thats the case, they/you seem to have misjudged things then, because there is absolutely controversy about the decision to remove him.

(It's unclear to me right now if you're speaking of your own opinion directly or are simply agreeing with their decision and trying to explain their reasoning.)
Again, I'm not taking any sides. I'm just saying they should remove both Johnny and Amber because they (Warner Bros.) don't want to get caught any controversy from them.

[Keltest]

Again, I'm not taking any sides. I'm just saying they should remove both Johnny and Amber because they (Warner Bros.) don't want to get caught any controversy from them.

I understand that, but the act of removing Johnny has caused significant controversy. So to that end, removing Johnny doesnt achieve the stated goal.

[Peelee]

Again, I'm not taking any sides.

You are taking a side though. You believe both of them and want both of them punished. That's a taking a side (the side of "screw 'em all" is still a side).

If you didn't want to take sides, then you probably wouldn't have had any thoughts or feelings to make a thread about it to start with. For example, me: I don't care. I don't know much about it, I have no real desire to know about it, and I have no thoughts or opinions on what should or should not happen to them.

That is not how you seem to be reacting. You're invested in it to some degree, you have opinions on what should be done, you're taking a side. Now, that's not a bad thing in itself, but I find it odd that you seem to think you're not doing it.

[Bartmanhomer]

I understand that, but the act of removing Johnny has caused significant controversy. So to that end, removing Johnny doesn't achieve the stated goal.

You made a good point though.

[Xyril]

Yes. Anyway, I'm not taking any sides to see who's innocent and who's the guilty party. I say both of them are guilty and I'm being neutral in this case.

You literally say they're both guilty after claiming that you're not going to say who is guilty and who is innocent. That's contradicting yourself pretty quickly.

More generally, I would say that there are different shades of neutrality. In your case, your posts aren't really neutral by even the most expansive definition, so this is a bit of a digression. Anyway, we should all keep in mind that even "not taking sides" doesn't necessarily mean you're being neutral. As Pelee noted, you were making factual assertions about the case that could impact how other people form their own opinions. By selecting what facts to share from what sources, deciding what sources to trust, and choosing how much to share about those sources, you stop being neutral.

Your incorrect assertion that Depp was removed from Aquaman 2 probably doesn't have a huge impact on how folks see this situation, but the fact that you kept making that incorrect assertion until somewhat forcefully confronted about your sources is a good example of you acting as an advocate for a certain view of the facts--the antithesis of neutrality.

Now imagine if someone else were claiming to be neutral but doing the same thing with different, more relevant facts. If I shared every unsubstantiated rumor of every bad thing Depp was accused of doing and passed it off as reliable sources, but only begrudgingly acknowledged allegations against Heard that were found to be true in court or her own admission (i.e., stuff that even the most biased party can't get away with denying), then I would obviously be trying to promote one party's position over the other.

[Bartmanhomer]

You are taking a side though. You believe both of them and want both of them punished. That's taking aside (the side of "screw 'em all" is still aside).

If you didn't want to take sides, then you probably wouldn't have had any thoughts or feelings to make a thread about it to start with. For example, me: I don't care. I don't know much about it, I have no real desire to know about it, and I have no thoughts or opinions on what should or should not happen to them.

That is not how you seem to be reacting. You're invested in it to some degree, you have opinions on what should be done, you're taking aside. Now, that's not a bad thing in itself, but I find it odd that you seem to think you're not doing it.


You say they're both guilty after claiming that you're not going to say who is guilty and who is innocent. That's contradicting yourself pretty quickly.

More generally, I would say that there are different shades of neutrality. In your case, your posts aren't neutral by even the most expansive definition, so this is a bit of a digression. Anyway, we should all keep in mind that even "not taking sides" doesn't necessarily mean you're being neutral. As Pelee noted, you were making factual assertions about the case that could impact how other people form their own opinions. By selecting what facts to share from what sources, deciding what sources to trust, and choosing how much to share about those sources, you stop being neutral.

Your incorrect assertion that Depp was removed from Aquaman 2 probably doesn't have a huge impact on how folks see this situation, but the fact that you kept making that incorrect assertion until somewhat forcefully confronted about your sources is a good example of you acting as an advocate for a certain view of the facts--the antithesis of neutrality.

Now imagine if someone else were claiming to be neutral but doing the same thing with different, more relevant facts. If I shared every unsubstantiated rumor of every bad thing Depp was accused of doing and passed it off as reliable sources, but only begrudgingly acknowledged allegations against Heard that were found to be true in court or her admission (i.e., stuff that even the most biased party can't get away with denying), then I would be trying to promote one party's position over the other.

How am I not being neutral in this case? So you mean to tell me that only Johnny should be punished but not Amber as well. How's is that taking sides even if I believe that both parties should be punished for their actions and more importantly how is that even fair anyway? :annoyed:

[Peelee]

How am I not being neutral in this case? So you mean to tell me that only Johnny should be punished but not Amber as well. How's is that taking sides even if I believe that both parties should be punished for their actions and more importantly how is that even fair anyway? :annoyed:
We both just told you how, though IMO Xyril did it better. I can try to do it in more detail, if you want. You said:

I'm not taking any sides to see who's innocent and who's the guilty party.
Then you said:

I say both of them are guilty
Do you see the disconnect here? You said one thing, then immediately said the opposite. "I'm not going to say who is guilty. I think they are guilty." You said you don't want to pass judgement, and then you immediately pass judgement.

Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's perfectly fine to have an opinion. But you're acting like you don't have an opinion while at the same time very clearly voicing your opinion. It's jarring.

[Bartmanhomer]

We both just told you how, though IMO Xyril did it better. I can try to do it in more detail if you want. You said:

Then you said:

Do you see the disconnect here? You said one thing, then immediately said the opposite. "I'm not going to say who is guilty. I think they are guilty." You said you don't want to pass judgment, and then you immediately pass judgment.

Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's perfectly fine to have an opinion. But you're acting like you don't have an opinion while at the same time very clearly voicing your opinion. It's jarring.

That's because there's no innocent and guilty party in this case. There's both guilty for their actions of attacking each other. But let say if there's a guilty party for Johnny is attacking Amber and she's the innocent victim or vice-versa. Then I will choose a side for the innocent victim.

[Liquor Box]

Neutral means not supporting either side in a conflict over the other.

Bartman is neutral as to the degree of fault between Depp and Heard - he is not taking sides between the two of them. But he is not neutral as to the question of whether there is any fault at all - he thinks there is.

It does seem to me that it was clear what Bartman meant when he referred to being neutral - he meant he was not siding with one over the other.

[Fyraltari]

How am I not being neutral in this case?
Because being neutral in this case would be throwing one's hands up in the air saying "I don't know/care."


So you mean to tell me that only Johnny should be punished but not Amber as well.
No. Xiril was presenting an hypothetical to make his point clearer.

How's is that taking sides even if I believe that both parties should be punished for their actions
"I believe Heard is the guilty party and should be punished", "I believed Depp is the guilty party and should be punished", "I believe Heard is the guilty party but should not be punished", "I believed Depp is the guilty party but should not be punished", "I believe both are innocents of any wrongdoings and should not be punished", "I believe both are guilty but none should be punished" "I believe both are guilty but only Heard/Depp should be punished" and "I believe both are guilty and both should be punished" are some of the sides one can take on this issue. None of them are neutral, you took the last one. The neutral take would be "I don't have a take on this issue".

and more importantly how is that even fair anyway? :annoyed:
Err, that's a question you should answer, since that's the position you are arguing for.

[Bartmanhomer]

Neutral means not supporting either side in a conflict over the other.

Bartman is neutral as to the degree of fault between Depp and Heard - he is not taking sides between the two of them. But he is not neutral as to the question of whether there is any fault at all - he thinks there is.

It does seem to me that it was clear what Bartman meant when he referred to being neutral - he meant he was not siding with one over the other.

That's exactly what I was saying.

[137beth]

I'm not going to take a side as to who is guilty and who is innocent: I think both Fyraltari and Bartmanhomer are guilty. I'm not going to take a side as to what they are guilty of, but they are guilty of something. But I'm not taking a side.

EDIT: Keltest, Peleee, Xyril, and Liquor Box are also guilty, but I'm not taking a side.

[Bartmanhomer]

I'm not going to take a side as to who is guilty and who is innocent: I think both Fyraltari and Bartmanhomer are guilty. I'm not going to take a side as to what they are guilty of, but they are guilty of something. But I'm not taking it aside.

EDIT: Keltest, Pelee, Cyril, and Liquor Box are also guilty, but I'm not taking it aside.

I know what you're doing. You're making a joke. After re-reading everyone's thoughts of me taking aside, I've to the conclusion that maybe I am taking a side and maybe not I'm not as neutral that I thought I'll be in this case. :sigh:

[Peelee]

I'm not going to take a side as to who is guilty and who is innocent: I think both Fyraltari and Bartmanhomer are guilty. I'm not going to take a side as to what they are guilty of, but they are guilty of something. But I'm not taking a side.

EDIT: Keltest, Peleee, Xyril, and Liquor Box are also guilty, but I'm not taking a side.

You'll never take me alive, copper!

[dancrilis]

There's both guilty for their actions of attacking each other.

It is possible that they are both innocent of attacking each other and both are merely very confused.

[Bartmanhomer]

It is possible that they are both innocent of attacking each other and both are merely very confused.

Could you please clarify more clearly please? I want to hear your logic behind it. :confused:

[dancrilis]

Could you please clarify more clearly please? I want to hear your logic behind it. :confused:

Sometimes people make mistakes, sometimes they don't remember things clearly, sometimes they mix up events (particularly if not fully in their right minds), sometimes they have delusional episodes, etc.

Unless you can rule all that (and more) out absolutely then it is conceivably possible that both parties are innocent of what they are being accused of and also possible that they are innocent of making delibrately false claims.

[Bartmanhomer]

Sometimes people make mistakes, sometimes they don't remember things clearly, sometimes they mix up events (particularly if not fully in their right minds), sometimes they have delusional episodes, etc.

Unless you can rule all that (and more) out absolutely then it is conceivable possible that both parties are innocent of what they are being accused of and also possible that they are innocent of making deliberately false claims.
Yes, that's very understandable and makes perfect sense. That I can understand that logic.

[Lemmy]

It's disgustting that JD's career is basically finished, while AH gets away with little more than a slap on the wrist, considering there's strong evidence, including recordings of her own voice, that not only she falsely accused JD, but also she was indeed the perpetrator of physical abuse.

It seems like the whole relationship was rather toxic, but AH is by far a much more horrible person, IMHO.

[Fyraltari]

I'm not going to take a side as to who is guilty and who is innocent: I think both Fyraltari and Bartmanhomer are guilty. I'm not going to take a side as to what they are guilty of, but they are guilty of something. But I'm not taking a side.

EDIT: Keltest, Peleee, Xyril, and Liquor Box are also guilty, but I'm not taking a side.

And I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling posters!

[Liquor Box]

It's disgustting that JD's career is basically finished, while AH gets away with little more than a slap on the wrist, considering there's strong evidence, including recordings of her own voice, that not only she falsely accused JD, but also she was indeed the perpetrator of physical abuse.

It seems like the whole relationship was rather toxic, but AH is by far a much more horrible person, IMHO.

To be fair, a competent court found that Depp was abusive on the balance of probabilities. No such finding has been made against Heard. The court finding that caused Depp to be fired came about because he chose to sue a magazine that suggested he was a wife beater. If Heard chose to challenge a media outlet, she might find herself in the same boat.

[Lemmy]

To be fair, a competent court found that Depp was abusive on the balance of probabilities. No such finding has been made against Heard. The court finding that caused Depp to be fired came about because he chose to sue a magazine that suggested he was a wife beater. If Heard chose to challenge a media outlet, she might find herself in the same boat.
It's disappointing that the "balance of probability" was little more than "he's a man, she's a woman, therefore, he's the guilty one".

There's literally audio recordings of Amber Heard saying she can't promise she won't get physical again.
And JD losing that case against that magazine was a shame.

But such is the world we live in...

[Dragonus45]

It's disappointing that the "balance of probability" was little more than "he's a man, she's a woman, therefore, he's the guilty one".

There's literally audio recordings of Amber Heard saying she can't promise she won't get physical again.
And JD losing that case against that magazine was a shame.

But such is the world we live in...

Pretty much yea, the only way Amber could be more clearly guilty is she started beating him up in a public park or something. Wait, no, people would probably start wondering what he did to make her so mad though. I feel sorry for Depp, seeing that gaslighting and abuse he received getting reflected back at him so strongly by the system.

[InvisibleBison]

It's disappointing that the "balance of probability" was little more than "he's a man, she's a woman, therefore, he's the guilty one".

There's literally audio recordings of Amber Heard saying she can't promise she won't get physical again.
And JD losing that case against that magazine was a shame.

But such is the world we live in...

Knowing nothing more of this situation than what I've read in this thread: Are you saying that because she has been abusing him, he cannot also have been abusing her? Because I don't think that's correct.

[Peelee]

Knowing nothing more of this situation than what I've read in this thread: Are you saying that because she has been abusing him, he cannot also have been abusing her? Because I don't think that's correct.

To add on to that, from what very little I have seen from my IRL friends posting stuff about it, the court case was over potential libel, not factual truth.

[Keltest]

To add on to that, from what very little I have seen from my IRL friends posting stuff about it, the court case was over potential libel, not factual truth.

Werent there multiple court cases? One about the actual facts of the case, and one between Depp and some tabloid or something that was badmouthing him?

[Peelee]

Werent there multiple court cases? One about the actual facts of the case, and one between Depp and some tabloid or something that was badmouthing him?

No clue. I assume there was at least one case against a tabloid, which was the libel case,assuming the headlines I saw were accurate.

[Lemmy]

Knowing nothing more of this situation than what I've read in this thread: Are you saying that because she has been abusing him, he cannot also have been abusing her? Because I don't think that's correct.

Possible? Yes. But doesn't seem to have been the case this time. There's even a recording of AH saying something like "You're a white man, no one will believe you!".

She was right.

[The Glyphstone]

Are your sources better than memes and Facebook posts on that, at least?:smallconfused:


I don't have a huge investment in this myself - I loathed the Fantastic Beasts movies for non-Depp reasons, and never saw Aquaman. I will, however, confess to being skeptical that this will 'end his career' somehow; other celebrities/actors have recovered from far worse allegations, and the lifespan of public attention for celebrity drama is notoriously fickle. A 2-3 year gap in his resume, maybe.

[Peelee]

Are your sources better than memes and Facebook posts on that, at least?:smallconfused:

AP and Guardian, IIRC. Shared by a memified Facebook, of course - I'm not a barbarian, after all.

[The Glyphstone]

AP and Guardian, IIRC. Shared by a memified Facebook, of course - I'm not a barbarian, after all.

Sorry, my quote-fu is terrible. I meant the audio recordings of Heard confessing/bragging/admitting to her actions, which I'd think would be pretty explosive pieces of evidence for a civil suit.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: nothing about the topic itself, or the discussion so far, is against the forum rules, but just a reminder to everyone to tread with care and not let the discussion get heated.

[Tvtyrant]

Sorry, my quote-fu is terrible. I meant the audio recordings of Heard confessing/bragging/admitting to her actions, which I'd think would be pretty explosive pieces of evidence for a civil suit.

They are on youtube under a channel named Crime Talk. I am redacting the link as they are NSFW.

[Dragonus45]

To add on to that, from what very little I have seen from my IRL friends posting stuff about it, the court case was over potential libel, not factual truth.

Yes, the case was about if he could claim they libeled him not a case against him for assault. All it really showed is that not even a literal smoking gun of innocence can be enough to save you from being smeared when you are a public figure. I tend to agree with the argument that there was no small amount of sexism involved in the way it played out either.

[Xyril]

Yes, the case was about if he could claim they libeled him not a case against him for assault. All it really showed is that not even a literal smoking gun of innocence can be enough to save you from being smeared when you are a public figure. I tend to agree with the argument that there was no small amount of sexism involved in the way it played out either.

There are a few important components to defamation in the U.S. (I don't know about UK law, except that in past decades it has generally been considered less free speech friendly by comparison): a false statement of fact, made in some blameworthy way, taken as a statement of fact by reasonable people, that cause harm to the plaintiff.

For celebrities and other public figures, the hurdles are higher to begin with--while generally you have to prove only that the defendant negligently made the false statements, when it comes to public figures you have to prove actual malice.

The element of "false statement of fact," at least in the U.S., is far more nuanced than it appears on the surface, and to the best of my knowledge we largely mirror U.K. law in that respect. The big mistake many folks make is that this element isn't equivalent to "an insult." Just to illustrate, it seems most folks today doesn't consider "gay" to be inherently insulting--however, if you're working in a field that's less open-minded about those things, and someone wrongly convinces people in that field that you're gay, and that tanks your career, then you have a strong case for defamation. However, the inverse cases are also true: If you insult someone in a way that reasonable people wouldn't take as a literal statement of fact, the fact that you offend the plaintiff alone doesn't make it a defamation case. In the U.S., which is First Amendment friendly, cases that are ambiguous tend to be decided to favor free speech. There are a lot of examples I can't really list here that fall under the category of "mere vulgar abuse": Most of them can be generally described as calling someone the type of person who regularly does something sexual (possibly with an inappropriate partner.) From a literal standpoint, one valid interpretation is that you're making a factual assertion about what that person does in his free time. From the courts perspective, no reasonable person would hear the exchange and believe that you actually participate in that activity--their first interpretation would be mere vulgar abuse, meant to offend you or provoke a reaction.

These nuances work against Depp (and plaintiffs in general.) The category of things the courts are willing to write off as "mere vulgar abuse" is more expansive than what most people would guess. Relatedly, accusations that have some kernel of truth--even if grossly exaggerated to the point that most people would consider dishonesty--tend to have that gray area work in favor of defendants.

Depending on some facts I don't know, this case may or may not be better in terms of damages. Losing a job due to the allegations is generally a clear-cut way to quantify monetary losses; however, if it's true what others have said, and Depp gets paid in full anyway, the Fantastic Beasts loss would have been less useful, and he would have had to show, more generally, what the cost to his reputation has been.

This actually raises a paradoxical issue of defamation law: Defendants have argued, with varying levels of success, that they should be judgement proof essentially because no reasonable person should take what they say as factually true. This might in fact be something that worked against Depp. It's perhaps too early to judge for sure, but this lawsuit seemed like a pyrrhic victory for Heard: Yes, the UK courts decided not to force her to pay damages and ruled that--under the narrow scope of the law--she was not liable. However, the facts that came out onto the public record as a result of this litigation have seriously undermined the narrative that she's been putting out for months, as well as her credibility in general. While it may have impacted his career in one very noticeable way, I am guessing that in the long term, his career and reputation are coming out of this ordeal pretty much intact.

[AvatarVecna]

My first thought at seeing the thread: "Ah yes, the nuanced take-haver has logged on!"

[Liquor Box]

It's disappointing that the "balance of probability" was little more than "he's a man, she's a woman, therefore, he's the guilty one".

There's literally audio recordings of Amber Heard saying she can't promise she won't get physical again.
And JD losing that case against that magazine was a shame.

But such is the world we live in...

The context was that Depp sued an English publication (the Sun) for defaming him for suggesting he was a wife beater. The Sun defended the action by claiming that its allegation was substantially true. As such, the court proceeding focused on whether Depp did beat his wife.

The court heard a wide variety of evidence. This included not only Depp and Heard themselves but several other people in close contact with them (such as bodyguards, makeup artists etc). So i am not sure it is fair to say the court made its decision based on which was a man and which was a woman - although I suppose you never know what biases may have underlain a court decision. You could probably read a copy of the judgment itself and see the court's reasoning if you chose.

It is important to remember that the court decision does not suggest that Heard was innocent of violence herself. It may well be the case that Depp initiated violence on some occasions and heard on others, or even that Heard has by far the worse of the two - this would still be consistent with the court decision. So your suggestion that there is evidence of Heard being an abuser may be true - it just hasn't been tested in Court like the evidence against Depp now has.

[Dragonus45]

The context was that Depp sued an English publication (the Sun) for defaming him for suggesting he was a wife beater. The Sun defended the action by claiming that its allegation was substantially true. As such, the court proceeding focused on whether Depp did beat his wife.

Yes and no, the court proceeding was focused on if Depp didn't beat if wife. Because when you want to prove libel you often are stuck trying to prove an awkward negative and when you are famous the standard for proving that negative can be rather high.




The court heard a wide variety of evidence. This included not only Depp and Heard themselves but several other people in close contact with them (such as bodyguards, makeup artists etc). So i am not sure it is fair to say the court made its decision based on which was a man and which was a woman - although I suppose you never know what biases may have underlain a court decision. You could probably read a copy of the judgment itself and see the court's reasoning if you chose.
I have seen the judgement, and read into that evidence. That in mind I'll say it's entirely fair to say that courts decision was gender motivated.



It is important to remember that the court decision does not suggest that Heard was innocent of violence herself. It may well be the case that Depp initiated violence on some occasions and heard on others, or even that Heard has by far the worse of the two - this would still be consistent with the court decision. So your suggestion that there is evidence of Heard being an abuser may be true - it just hasn't been tested in Court like the evidence against Depp now has.
It also doesn't explicitly support the idea that Depp was violent, just that Depp was unable to prove the negative that he wasn't/prove the people accusing him of such met a very specific standard when they lied. The evidence against Depp still hasn't been tested or brought into court in the context you are implying it has been.

[Liquor Box]

Yes and no, the court proceeding was focused on if Depp didn't beat if wife. Because when you want to prove libel you often are stuck trying to prove an awkward negative and when you are famous the standard for proving that negative can be rather high.
That's not correct.

When Depp brought a claim for defamation he had to prove that the Sun said a thing, and that the thing said conveyed defamatory meanings. Depp was able to prove this easily.

The Sun then had the option of raising any number of defences to the defamation proceedings. It elected to raise the defence of 'truth'. For the defence of 'truth' to succeed the onus was on The Sun to prove that its allegations were true on the balance of probabilities. It was ultimately able to do so to the court's satisfaction, so successfully defended the proceeding.

So Depp did not need to prove a negative. On the contrary The Sun had to prove (on the balance of probabilities) a positive.


I have seen the judgement, and read into that evidence. That in mind I'll say it's entirely fair to say that courts decision was gender motivated.

Interesting that you read it that way. To me it seems to be quite a through examination of the evidence put before the court. Perhaps you could point to the specific passages which you think indicate that the court was biased in its decision:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/2911.pdf


It also doesn't explicitly support the idea that Depp was violent, just that Depp was unable to prove the negative that he wasn't/prove the people accusing him of such met a very specific standard when they lied. The evidence against Depp still hasn't been tested or brought into court in the context you are implying it has been.

As noted above, you are mistaken about this. The onus was put on The Sun to prove that Depp did beat his wife, and the Court found that it had met this onus. I am happy to provide a reference to the relevant statute if you would like.

[Dragonus45]

That's not correct.

When Depp brought a claim for defamation he had to prove that the Sun said a thing, and that the thing said conveyed defamatory meanings. Depp was able to prove this easily.

The Sun then had the option of raising any number of defences to the defamation proceedings. It elected to raise the defence of 'truth'. For the defence of 'truth' to succeed the onus was on The Sun to prove that its allegations were true on the balance of probabilities. It was ultimately able to do so to the court's satisfaction, so successfully defended the proceeding.

So Depp did not need to prove a negative. On the contrary The Sun had to prove (on the balance of probabilities) a positive.

As nice as it sounds in theory the "pro-claimant" hardly works out that way in practice here because he was suing The Sun, the paper calls in Heard as a witness and she says he did it, that is not evidence the sun "didn't lie" and Depp now has to prove the negative and prover her wrong, which is really hard to do when the judge decides to soft ball her on own admissions of violence.



Interesting that you read it that way. To me it seems to be quite a through examination of the evidence put before the court. Perhaps you could point to the specific passages which you think indicate that the court was biased in its decision:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/2911.pdf

Section vii) is a favorite.

The Judge literally said that Heard admitting she is consistently violent had no bearing on whether or not she was violent or the aggressor. Pure. Sexist. Bias. And you cannot discount the importance of her being the aggressor in this situation. Who is starting the fights and who is defending themselves is fundamentally important to the argument "is person A a wife beater." When you decide to ignore something that important to the case of course your final result is going to be massively skewed.

[JadedDM]

The Judge literally said that Heard admitting she is consistently violent had no bearing on whether or not she was violent or the aggressor. Pure. Sexist. Bias. And you cannot discount the importance of her being the aggressor in this situation. Who is starting the fights and who is defending themselves is fundamentally important to the argument "is person A a wife beater."
That's not how law works.

If Bob steals from Alice, who is in turn stealing from him, Bob is still a thief. The two do not cancel each other out. If Bob cheats on Alice, and Alice gets revenge by cheating on Bob, Alice is still committing adultery. Her reasoning does not change that.

[Peelee]

As nice as it sounds in theory the "pro-claimant" hardly works out that way in practice here because he was suing The Sun, the paper calls in Heard as a witness and she says he did it, that is not evidence the sun "didn't lie"

Testimony is evidence. So, assuming they believed her, why would this not be evidence that The Sun didn't lie?

Also, stop making me defend The Sun.

[Saintheart]

I heard from a major reputable meme that Johnny Depp and Amber Heard were both fired from the upcoming Order of the Stick movie.

Well that makes me much happier. I've been telling you all for months that Vaarsuvius needs to be played by Benedict Cummerbund or whatever the hell his name is, and the only reason they couldn't get Scarlett Johanssen to play Haley was because she had a conflict with the Black Widow filming. Now she's presumably free to slot into the part!

[Peelee]

Well that makes me much happier. I've been telling you all for months that Vaarsuvius needs to be played by Benedict Cummerbund or whatever the hell his name is, and the only reason they couldn't get Scarlett Johanssen to play Haley was because she had a conflict with the Black Widow filming. Now she's presumably free to slot into the part!

I hear they're casting Resurrection on Bob Hoskins to play Redcloak.

[Saintheart]

I hear they're casting Resurrection on Bob Hoskins to play Redcloak.

That must be because Bill Cosby's pardon fell through to get him out to take the part.

[Liquor Box]

As nice as it sounds in theory the "pro-claimant" hardly works out that way in practice here because he was suing The Sun, the paper calls in Heard as a witness and she says he did it, that is not evidence the sun "didn't lie" and Depp now has to prove the negative and prover her wrong, which is really hard to do when the judge decides to soft ball her on own admissions of violence.

Again, that's not correct.

Having elected to raise the defence of 'truth' The Sun must prove that Depp was a wife beater on the balance of probabilities. To do this it did call Heard, as well of a number of other witnesses, and Depp called himself as well as a number of witnesses in opposition. All of this is evidence - eyewitness testimony is bread and butter evidence for the courts. After hearing from all these people, the Court must (and did) ask itself the question - having regard to the evidence before us, has The Sub proven Depp was a wife-beater on the balance of probabilities.

It sounds like you are not making a legal point that the judge incorrectly placed the onus on Depp to prove the falsity of The Sun's statements. Instead it sounds like you are simply saying the Court placed too much reliance on Heard's evidence and came to the wrong decision?


Section vii) is a favorite.

The Judge literally said that Heard admitting she is consistently violent had no bearing on whether or not she was violent or the aggressor. Pure. Sexist. Bias. And you cannot discount the importance of her being the aggressor in this situation. Who is starting the fights and who is defending themselves is fundamentally important to the argument "is person A a wife beater." When you decide to ignore something that important to the case of course your final result is going to be massively skewed.

I take it you are referring to paragraphs 169 to 176?

My first point is that gender or Heard being a woman is not referred to in those paragraphs. I appreciate you disagree with the Court's findings on this point, and you are entitled to do so. But even if the Court is wrong, I don't think it is reasonable to conclude that it was biased, sexist or making decisions based on gender. In my opinion it is unreasonable to assume a sexist motive whenever there is an outcome between a man and a woman that you disagree with - I think those sorts of conclusions are too often leapt to by men or women who perceive such motives behind a wide range of outcomes, and more often than not the perceived sexism is simply not present.

As to whether the substance of your point, on my read the transcript of the recording suggested Heard admitted to being violent herself, and admitted sometimes initiate the violence. On the face of it, I would have thought that relevant (although far from decisive) on the question of whether Depp was himself violent. The Court found it had minimal relevance because Heard was not seeking to be truthful in those exchanges (I can only speculate, but perhaps her testimony was that she was seeking reconciliation at any cost) and because the recorded comments were not very specific. Although, I tend to agree with you that they had some relevance, it is worth noting that the Court had the benefit of hearing all the evidence, whereas you and I did not.

[Dragonus45]

That's not how law works.

If Bob steals from Alice, who is in turn stealing from him, Bob is still a thief. The two do not cancel each other out. If Bob cheats on Alice, and Alice gets revenge by cheating on Bob, Alice is still committing adultery. Her reasoning does not change that.
Defending yourself from an abusive partner is not being abusing yourself.

[Liquor Box]

Sorry, my quote-fu is terrible. I meant the audio recordings of Heard confessing/bragging/admitting to her actions, which I'd think would be pretty explosive pieces of evidence for a civil suit.

Some such recordings are quoted in the judgment (thanks to Draganus for locating the exchange). This goes to one of the recordings Lemmy referenced (Heard refusing to promise not to get physical again) but not the other ("you are a white man so you will lose"), although the judgment does refer to having heard other recordings.


‘JD: It’s not true. It’s not true. I’m not the one who ****ing throws ****ing pots
and whatever the ****ing else at me.
AH: That’s different. That’s different. That’s one ... does not negate the other.
That’s irrelevant. It’s a complete non sequitur. Just because I’ve thrown pots and
pans does not mean you can come and knock on the door.
JD: Vases and ****ing ...
AH: Just because there are vases does not mean you come and knock on the door.
JD: Relationships should let you throw ...
AH: I’m not saying that. You’re saying that. You’re putting words in my mouth
and then making non sequiturs.
...
JD: You punched me
AH: ... hit you across the face in a proper slap, but I was hitting you, it was not
punching you. Babe, you’re not punched.
JD: Don’t tell me what it feels like to be punched.
AH; I know you’ve been in a lot of fights, you’ve been around a long time. I know,
yeah.
JD: No, when you ****ing have a closed fist –
AH: You didn’t get punch. You got hit. I’m sorry I hit you like this. But I did not
punch you. I did not ****ing deck you. I ****ing was hitting you. I don’t know
what the motion of my actual hand was, but you’re fine. I did not hurt you. I did
not punch you. I was hitting you.
...
AH: You’re a ****ing baby.
JD: Because you start physical fights?
AH: You’re such a baby. Grow the **** up.
JD: Because you start physical fights?
AH: I did start a physical fight.
...
AH: But I do ... and I can’t promise you that I’ll be perfect, I can’t promise you that
I won’t get physical again. God, I ****ing sometimes get so mad I lose it. I can
****ing promise you I’m ... I’ll do everything to change...’


‘JD: I don’t want a divorce, I never wanted a ****in’ divorce. I didn’t want you to
****in’ go to Coachella [presumably a reference to the fact that Ms Heard and a
group of friends went to the Coachella music festival after incident 13] without
****in’ talking to me because I left you because you were ****in’ ... you ****in’
hay-makered me, man. You came around the bed to ****in’ start punching on me.
AH: I’m so sad. I love you so much.’

[Bartmanhomer]

I still think both of them are guilty. Just saying.

[Liquor Box]

I still think both of them are guilty. Just saying.

Having read through some of the judgment, I tend to agree. Both appear to have been quite abusive to the other.

[Bartmanhomer]

Having read through some of the judgment, I tend to agree. Both appear to have been quite abusive to the other.

Exactly. That what I've been saying the whole time. It doesn't matter who started the abuse. Both of them had a mutually abusive relationship with each other.

[Xyril]

That's not how law works.

If Bob steals from Alice, who is in turn stealing from him, Bob is still a thief. The two do not cancel each other out. If Bob cheats on Alice, and Alice gets revenge by cheating on Bob, Alice is still committing adultery. Her reasoning does not change that.

You are incorrect about how the law works, at least in the U.S. and most other places that come out of the common law tradition (this includes the U.K.) There are certainly situations where two people can be mutually guilty of something regardless of who acted first. The most obvious counterexample is the one we're discussing in this thread: the full (non-sexual) violence spectrum, up to and including homicide. If two people use violence against one another, the law absolutely does care who started it, whether the other person escalated it, etc., in determining whether one or both parties is culpable. In the U.S., this applies in both civil and criminal law. If you hit your spouse out of nowhere, that's most likely a crime. If you hit your spouse after he or she's been continually hitting you, then there is a strong possibility that your actions are justified.

In the United States, there's been substantial precedent finding that self-defense can be more broadly applied in situations involving habitual abuse. In other words, you can have a particular situation where Bob's conduct doesn't quite pass the threshold for imminent harm, and thus Alice couldn't use force to defend herself. However, if Bob has repeatedly beaten Alice, then that context changes everything in many jurisdictions. If Bob has repeatedly harmed Alice, then the law often won't split hairs over the fact that Bob wasn't about to deliver one of his more severe beating on that particular day.

Surprisingly, when pulling an example out of thin air, you managed to cite one of the few other areas of the where your assertions aren't entirely: Theft. While it's scope varies drastically between jurisdictions, the doctrine of hot pursuit often lets to recover (i.e., "steal" back) your property from a thief. So it all depends on the ambiguous wording of your hypothetical: If Alice is stealing cash from my house, and I keep taking Alice's cars, then those are both independently theft. However, if I steal Alice's car, and Alice in turn steals it back, then from a legal standpoint, whether or not she's guilty of a crime depends entirely on the timing and circumstances of her recovery, and how liberally the law in that jurisdiction interprets hot pursuit. From just my own personal moral judgment, I would be very reluctant to call Alice a thief, even if she landed slightly on the wrong side of the law in recovering her property.

[Bartmanhomer]

At this point, we don't know who started it first since both of them have been attacking each other for years. :sigh:

[Rynjin]

Surprisingly, when pulling an example out of thin air, you managed to cite one of the few other areas of the where your assertions aren't entirely: Theft. While it's scope varies drastically between jurisdictions, the doctrine of hot pursuit often lets to recover (i.e., "steal" back) your property from a thief. So it all depends on the ambiguous wording of your hypothetical: If Alice is stealing cash from my house, and I keep taking Alice's cars, then those are both independently theft. However, if I steal Alice's car, and Alice in turn steals it back, then from a legal standpoint, whether or not she's guilty of a crime depends entirely on the timing and circumstances of her recovery, and how liberally the law in that jurisdiction interprets hot pursuit. From just my own personal moral judgment, I would be very reluctant to call Alice a thief, even if she landed slightly on the wrong side of the law in recovering her property.

Legally speaking, can you even "steal" your own property in the first place? It belongs to you. Particularly with something like a car which has legal documentation PROVING you own it.

You may potentially be committing other crimes in the process of retrieving your property (such as breaking and entering, trespassing, etc.), but not theft. I know they say possession is 9/10ths of the law and all, but I wouldn't think that would be taken too literally in a situation like that.

[Precure]

As a compromise, they both should be fired and then hired to play each other's roles.

[Talakeal]

As a compromise, they both should be fired and then hired to play each other's roles.

You know what, I didn’t realize I wanted to see a romance between Aquaman and Jack Sparrow until this very moment.

[dps]

Having elected to raise the defence of 'truth' The Sun must prove that Depp was a wife beater on the balance of probabilities. To do this it did call Heard, as well of a number of other witnesses, and Depp called himself as well as a number of witnesses in opposition. All of this is evidence - eyewitness testimony is bread and butter evidence for the courts. After hearing from all these people, the Court must (and did) ask itself the question - having regard to the evidence before us, has The Sub proven Depp was a wife-beater on the balance of probabilities.

I knew that in the US, the truth of a slander or libel is an absolute defense, but it's a positive defense, meaning that the onus is on the party raising the defense to prove that the allegedly defamatory statement was indeed the truth.


It sounds like you are not making a legal point that the judge incorrectly placed the onus on Depp to prove the falsity of The Sun's statements. Instead it sounds like you are simply saying the Court placed too much reliance on Heard's evidence and came to the wrong decision?

That would be a reasonable position to take. I don't know if it's correct or not, but it would be reasonable.

[Liquor Box]

I knew that in the US, the truth of a slander or libel is an absolute defense, but it's a positive defense, meaning that the onus is on the party raising the defense to prove that the allegedly defamatory statement was indeed the truth.

Yes, it is the same in UK. The Sun raised truth as a defence, so the Sun had to prove Depp was a wife beater.


That would be a reasonable position to take. I don't know if it's correct or not, but it would be reasonable.
Indeed

[Bartmanhomer]

Legally speaking, can you even "steal" your property in the first place? It belongs to you. Particularly with something like a car that has legal documentation PROVING you own it.

You may potentially be committing other crimes in the process of retrieving your property (such as breaking not theft. I know they say possession is 9/10ths of the law and all, but I wouldn't think that would be taken too literally in a situation like that.
How can you steal your property? You own it and it's not illegal. :confused:

[Peelee]

How can you steal your property? You own it and it's not illegal. :confused:

It might very well be illegal, circumstances depending. Even in a case where it is not at all illegal, that does not protect you against possibly getting arrested and jailed regardless.

[Bartmanhomer]

It might very well be illegal, circumstances depending. Even in a case where it is not at all illegal, that does not protect you against possibly getting arrested and jailed regardless.

What? Really? Get out of town! :eek:

[Peelee]

What? Really? Get out of town! :eek:

Gross oversimplifications for the purpose of demonstration:

Case one: You own a ball. Bob steals your ball, puts it in his house, and locks the door. You steal your ball back. You have now most likely committed breaking and entering as well as burglary.

Case two: You own a ball. Bob steals your ball. The next day you see Bob with your ball so you take it back. A cop sees you do this. You are arrested and jailed pending trial. You may get acquired at trial, but that did not stop you from getting arrested and jailed.

But yeah. Don't assume that just because you're stealing your own thing back that it's legal of that you won't get in trouble for it. Neither of those are necessarily true.

[Bartmanhomer]

Gross oversimplifications for demonstration:

Case one: You own a ball. Bob steals your ball, puts it in his house, and locks the door. You steal your ball back. You have now most likely committed breaking as well as burglary.

Case two: You own a ball. Bob steals your ball. The next day you see Bob with your ball so you take it back. A cop sees you do this. You are arrested and jailed pending trial. You may get acquired at trial, but that did not stop you from getting arrested and jailed.

But yeah. Don't assume that just because you're stealing your own thing back that it's legal that you won't get in trouble for it. Neither of those is necessarily true.

Ooooooh, I see what you mean. :sigh:

[Xyril]

Legally speaking, can you even "steal" your own property in the first place? It belongs to you. Particularly with something like a car which has legal documentation PROVING you own it.


I think that most laws stemming from common law theft/larceny probably still keep some variation of "taking the property of another" as an element of the crime, so the simple answer is "probably no, in most places."

Like you mention, there are a ton of incidental crimes you'd be committing, and except for an extremely limited range of circumstances, "I own that and I was getting it back" isn't a legal excuse or justification.

There's another consideration that might complicate things, though: Since there are plenty of situations where you can own something, but can authorize someone else to possess it (even exclusively), the law has evolved in some places to take that into consideration. For example, early caselaw for crimes such as trespass and burglary generally speak in terms of property owned by another--however, in modern civil and criminal law, if you're a landlord and you act outside the scope of whatever rights you retain in the contract, then you could legally commit either of those crimes on your own property. In general, stealing things doesn't get you authorization to possess the thing you stole, any more than it gets you valid title over it--however, it wouldn't surprise me if there's some state somewhere that has some theft or theft-like law constructed broadly enough to get you into trouble. This would be especially bad for you if it applies to some robbery-like law, since adding the element of intent to steal to whatever force you used to get your stuff back tends to get you into a lot more trouble.

[Talakeal]

I knew that in the US, the truth of a slander or libel is an absolute defense, but it's a positive defense, meaning that the onus is on the party raising the defense to prove that the allegedly defamatory statement was indeed the truth.

It is my understanding that this is false; in the US the burden of proof is upon the party seeking damages to prove that the story was false.

[Peelee]

It is my understanding that this is false; in the US the burden of proof is upon the party seeking damages to prove that the story was false.

I claim that Bob punched a kitten. Bob sues for libel. How exactly could Bob prove that he has never punched a kitten?

[Xyril]

I claim that Bob punched a kitten. Bob sues for libel. How exactly could Bob prove that he has never punched a kitten?

The thing to remember is that "evidence" as a legal term differs from lay use because the law explicitly recognizes testimonial evidence as falling under that umbrella; in contrast, often when lay people demand "evidence" outside of a courtroom situation, they implicitly mean "proof of that what you're saying is true, beyond me just taking your word for it."

To even file a defamation suit, you have to allege that the elements of the cause of action all apply; on top of that, you have to allege specific facts supporting each of those elements. For defamation, one key element is a false statement purporting to be factually true. To support that element, you generally have to allege "defendant said this" and "this isn't true." This is something you do at the beginning of the lawsuit in the complaint, essentially the document where you tell the court and the defendant the legal basis on which you're suing, and the facts supporting that legal basis. This isn't sworn testimony, and it doesn't have to be a concrete case--for example, under circumstances where key evidence is entirely controlled by the defendant, it would likely be sufficient to say that you believe certain facts to be true and expect evidence to turn up on discovery. However, the plaintiff and his attorney are expected to only make allegations in the complaint that they believe to be true, so by even filing a defamation suit, the plaintiff is effectively asserting that the defendant made false statements.

Once you get to trial, the burden of proof is indeed on the plaintiff to provide evidence supporting everything he said in the complaint--including the falsity of the statements in question. However, testimonial evidence (i.e., the plaintiff swearing under oath that he's never punched a kitten) is more than enough to satisfy this requirement. This is where you get to the point where truth is effectively an affirmative defense, even though technically it's only refuting a key element of the lawsuit: In practice, you're going to have to come up with enough evidence that the plaintiff punched a kitten that they're willing to conclude that the plaintiff lied under oath.

Generally, when you're talking about affirmative defenses--especially in criminal cases--they are distinct in that the burden of proof falls upon you to prove something. A conventional defense means undermining the prosecution, and if the prosecution is poor enough to begin with, then you should theoretically be able to prevail even if the defense rests immediately. In a defamation case, in theory you don't have to offer anything in your own defense if the plaintiff fails to prove their case to begin with. However, the initial burden of proof for the falsity element is so miniscule that in practice, there's no way a defendant can have knock it out unless they bring some sort of evidence to the table.

[Liquor Box]

I claim that Bob punched a kitten. Bob sues for libel. How exactly could Bob prove that he has never punched a kitten?

By testifying that he has never punched a kitten.


Legally speaking, can you even "steal" your own property in the first place? It belongs to you. Particularly with something like a car which has legal documentation PROVING you own it.

You may potentially be committing other crimes in the process of retrieving your property (such as breaking and entering, trespassing, etc.), but not theft. I know they say possession is 9/10ths of the law and all, but I wouldn't think that would be taken too literally in a situation like that.

Where I am from, usually you cannot. Theft requires you take property without claim of right with the intent of depriving an owner of that property. So if it belongs to you and nobody else then you are no depriving another owner of it.

It would get more complicated where the property was owned by more than one person (as it may be in a marriage, since we are talking in the context of Heard/Depp) then it would come down to whether one person had the right to deprive the other of the thing.

How far you are entitled to go to retrieve your property would depend heavily on the circumstances. Where I am from, you are allowed to trespass to retrieve your property where it is reasonable to do so.

[Peelee]

The thing to remember is that "evidence" as a legal term differs from lay use because the law explicitly recognizes testimonial evidence as falling under that umbrella; in contrast, often when lay people demand "evidence" outside of a courtroom situation, they implicitly mean "proof of that what you're saying is true, beyond me just taking your word for it."

To even file a defamation suit, you have to allege that the elements of the cause of action all apply; on top of that, you have to allege specific facts supporting each of those elements. For defamation, one key element is a false statement purporting to be factually true. To support that element, you generally have to allege "defendant said this" and "this isn't true." This is something you do at the beginning of the lawsuit in the complaint, essentially the document where you tell the court and the defendant the legal basis on which you're suing, and the facts supporting that legal basis. This isn't sworn testimony, and it doesn't have to be a concrete case--for example, under circumstances where key evidence is entirely controlled by the defendant, it would likely be sufficient to say that you believe certain facts to be true and expect evidence to turn up on discovery. However, the plaintiff and his attorney are expected to only make allegations in the complaint that they believe to be true, so by even filing a defamation suit, the plaintiff is effectively asserting that the defendant made false statements.

Once you get to trial, the burden of proof is indeed on the plaintiff to provide evidence supporting everything he said in the complaint--including the falsity of the statements in question. However, testimonial evidence (i.e., the plaintiff swearing under oath that he's never punched a kitten) is more than enough to satisfy this requirement. This is where you get to the point where truth is effectively an affirmative defense, even though technically it's only refuting a key element of the lawsuit: In practice, you're going to have to come up with enough evidence that the plaintiff punched a kitten that they're willing to conclude that the plaintiff lied under oath.

Generally, when you're talking about affirmative defenses--especially in criminal cases--they are distinct in that the burden of proof falls upon you to prove something. A conventional defense means undermining the prosecution, and if the prosecution is poor enough to begin with, then you should theoretically be able to prevail even if the defense rests immediately. In a defamation case, in theory you don't have to offer anything in your own defense if the plaintiff fails to prove their case to begin with. However, the initial burden of proof for the falsity element is so miniscule that in practice, there's no way a defendant can have knock it out unless they bring some sort of evidence to the table.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but civil suits rely on a preponderance of evidence, so the plaintiff saying "nuh uh" and the defendend saying "yuh huh" does not really come out with a preponderance of evidence that the the plaintiff did not do it.

[Liquor Box]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but civil suits rely on a preponderance of evidence, so the plaintiff saying "nuh uh" and the defendend saying "yuh huh" does not really come out with a preponderance of evidence that the the plaintiff did not do it.

It is often the case that you have conflicting testimony and the court decides which is more credible on the balance of probabilities (or the preponderance of the evidence as you put it). Sometimes it will be assisted by other evidence - like an autopsy of the kitten saying it was killed by a heavy blow, but sometimes it will just be one person's word against another.

This is particularly relevant to domestic violence, because that is often one person's word against another. Sometimes (like Heard Depp) you have other people around, and all sorts of texts and emails talking about it. But often it is just the two people involved who are able to give evidence. That's a problem in criminal cases (which require proof beyond aa reasonable doubt), but less so when proving the truth of a defamation.

Edit: But ultimately what you say is possible. It rarely happens in practice, but the court might find that the evidence is so finely balanced that one side cannot be preferred to the other - if it's truly 50/50. In that case the party that bears the onus loses. So where truth is advanced as a defence, the party advancing it would lose if the court simply could find that the burden had been overcome.

[Peelee]

It is often the case that you have conflicting testimony and the court decides which is more credible on the balance of probabilities (or the preponderance of the evidence as you put it). Sometimes it will be assisted by other evidence - like an autopsy of the kitten saying it was killed by a heavy blow, but sometimes it will just be one person's word against another.

This is particularly relevant to domestic violence, because that is often one person's word against another. Sometimes (like Heard Depp) you have other people around, and all sorts of texts and emails talking about it. But often it is just the two people involved who are able to give evidence. That's a problem in criminal cases (which require proof beyond aa reasonable doubt), but less so when proving the truth of a defamation.

My understanding is that "beyond reasonable doubt" is like 95% sure while preponderance of evidence is like 51%. Ish. I realize numbers are not really reliable but that gets the gist.

[Liquor Box]

My understanding is that "beyond reasonable doubt" is like 95% sure while preponderance of evidence is like 51%. Ish. I realize numbers are not really reliable but that gets the gist.

Preponderance of the evidence is an American term, and I am not familiar with the case law, but my understanding is that it is simply another way of saying 'on the balance of probabilities' (which is the term used in other common law countries). But you are right it is 51%, or anything above 50%.

Where i am from the Court has cautioned against a numerical value of "beyond reasonable doubt". But I expect you would have to be far more than 95% sure. There is less than a 5% chance that a given house will burn down in the next year, but people must have reasonable doubt or they would not pay for insurance. There are a number of ways of articulating it, but in essence it means that you are near certain that you are right, such that any doubts are slight and unreasonable.

[Xyril]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but civil suits rely on a preponderance of evidence, so the plaintiff saying "nuh uh" and the defendend saying "yuh huh" does not really come out with a preponderance of evidence that the the plaintiff did not do it.

Honestly, I don't recall if there's any precedent specifically addressing the issue of whether a 50% tie goes to the defendant or the plaintiff in this particular case. As a general principle, the burden of proof goes to the plaintiff--so 50% is generally in favor of the defendant, except with respect to some defenses which specifically fall on the defendant to prove. In theory, because every element is essential to the cause of action, then I suppose you could think of it as chaining probabilities: In other words, if the jury believes that it's a coin toss whether you've proven false statement, then at most there is a 50% chance that your entire case is good (assuming you've proven every other element beyond any reasonable doubt, or the defense admitted or stipulated to some of them.) There might be precedent or regs in some places that treat truth more like an affirmative defense and put the >50% burden on the defendant for that particular element--I haven't seen any, but it's certainly possible.

In practice, this is all very abstract and esoteric: The jury doesn't usually find two witnesses precisely equal in credibility, and the likelihood that they'll actually break down each element of the case as individual, independent probability events based on the evidence presented for each element is almost non-existence. In practice what will happen is that the plaintiff will present evidence for everything. Even if the only evidence directly addressing whether the statements in question are true are the uncorroborated testimony of the plaintiff and the defendant, there will most likely be a lot of back and forth on other issues like damages and malice. Through all of this, the jury will form opinions about how generally credible and sympathetic each side is. If the plaintiff presents other witnesses and other corroborating evidence on the other elements, this will influence how the jury view credibility on the issue of truth, even if they're instructed not to. If the plaintiff presents a strong case as a whole, and the defendant focuses entirely on showing that it's entirely "he said, she said" on the issue of truth, most juries won't fixate on splitting that particular hair: They will be swayed by the strength of the overall case, and that will influence how they view the credibility of the plaintiff as a witness. This is why bolstering is so strictly limited by the rules of evidence.

Also, if the defense makes any meaningful effort to prove that the statements in question are true, then there's pretty much zero chance that the plaintiffs would let their case stand entirely on the plaintiff testifying that it wasn't true. They would cross examine the defendant, getting every detail they can about when they saw the alleged cat kicking. Not only would they recall the plaintiff as a witness, in order to exploit any issues raised by the defendant's testimony, they would use every detail raised by the defendant as an opening to bring in more witnesses. If the defendant claims that he saw the kitten getting kicked while taking a walk in the plaintiff's gated community, then the plaintiff might call neighbors or guards to testify that they didn't see the defendant, or any other strangers, walking around on that day. If the defendant says that the plaintiff kicked a kitten to death and left him in the street, then the plaintiff can bring in police reports, or witnesses testifying that no kittens went missing within miles of the alleged kitten murder, and that nobody noticed a dead kitten rotting in the street. Meanwhile, with every witness called for the plaintiffs, the attorneys will try everything they can to effectively bolster their guy's credibility and character. You generally can't ask a question just to have a witness talk about what an honest, non-kitten-kicking guy your plaintiff is. However, once the defendant has told his story in detail, he generally brings up a lot of details that are relevant to the credibility of his specific testimony--something that's usually fair game. Smart attorneys will exploit testimony addressing these issues by framing it to tangentially bolster their own witnesses. For example, if the defendant claims he saw the plaintiff punch a kitten on a certain day and leave it bleeding in the street, the plaintiff can call a neighbor to testify that he jogs past the alleged punching site every day and has never seen a dead kitten, or any sign of blood. Then you ask whether the jogger has ever seen signs of a dead kitten.

In many places, it can be challenging to just bring in a parade of friends and neighbors to testify that they've known you for years and that they've never known you to punch kittens. However, once the defendant has committed himself to some sworn version of events, he often opens the door to bring in a lot of witnesses who can do precisely that. This means that if a case looks like it will effectively hinge on one man's word against another's, it will almost never stay in that state. Barring extraordinary circumstances (i.e., the events in question happened in a pocket universe with only the two witnesses around), only two things would prevent the plaintiff from aggressively pushing back against any sort of defense: lack of resources, or lack of will. The nature of defamation law in the U.S. means that folks who fit either category rarely file defamation suits to begin with.

[Liquor Box]

Honestly, I don't recall if there's any precedent specifically addressing the issue of whether a 50% tie goes to the defendant or the plaintiff in this particular case. As a general principle, the burden of proof goes to the plaintiff--so 50% is generally in favor of the defendant, except with respect to some defenses which specifically fall on the defendant to prove. In theory, because every element is essential to the cause of action, then I suppose you could think of it as chaining probabilities: In other words, if the jury believes that it's a coin toss whether you've proven false statement, then at most there is a 50% chance that your entire case is good (assuming you've proven every other element beyond any reasonable doubt, or the defense admitted or stipulated to some of them.) There might be precedent or regs in some places that treat truth more like an affirmative defense and put the >50% burden on the defendant for that particular element--I haven't seen any, but it's certainly possible.

In practice, this is all very abstract and esoteric: The jury doesn't usually find two witnesses precisely equal in credibility, and the likelihood that they'll actually break down each element of the case as individual, independent probability events based on the evidence presented for each element is almost non-existence. In practice what will happen is that the plaintiff will present evidence for everything. Even if the only evidence directly addressing whether the statements in question are true are the uncorroborated testimony of the plaintiff and the defendant, there will most likely be a lot of back and forth on other issues like damages and malice. Through all of this, the jury will form opinions about how generally credible and sympathetic each side is. If the plaintiff presents other witnesses and other corroborating evidence on the other elements, this will influence how the jury view credibility on the issue of truth, even if they're instructed not to. If the plaintiff presents a strong case as a whole, and the defendant focuses entirely on showing that it's entirely "he said, she said" on the issue of truth, most juries won't fixate on splitting that particular hair: They will be swayed by the strength of the overall case, and that will influence how they view the credibility of the plaintiff as a witness. This is why bolstering is so strictly limited by the rules of evidence.


I'm not sure if you are talking about some overseas jurisdiction, but for the purpose of the Depp/Sun trial the onus was very clearly on the defendant to prove its truth defence. The judge says so from para 40:

The defence of truth: the burden and standard of proof
40. As Defamation Act 2013 s.2(1) makes clear, it is for a defendant to prove that the libel
was substantially true. The burden of proof therefore rests on the defendant. That was
also the case when the common law defence of justification existed.
41. As for the standard of proof, the starting point is that these are civil proceedings and in
civil proceedings the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities i.e. is it more
probable than not that the article was substantially true in the meaning that it bore? In
this case, is it more likely than not that the claimant did what the articles alleged?

You also reference a jury. The trial was before a judge, and it did not have a jury. Trials before judges do sometimes (although not commonly) turn on the onus. In other words, judges have explicitly said that they cannot say whether a thing has or has not happened and made a finding accordingly.

I'm not sure I properly understood what you mean by chaining probabilities. But if I am reading it right, then it doesn't work like that. If a plaintiff is unable to establish one necessary element of its case to the prescribed standard, then the case fails.

Another small point, which I didn't mention at the time, but will now. On the previous page you talked about the law caring who started it (including in UK). That is sort of true if one were applying the criminal defences of self defence or provocation. But it is not relevant in this case, which is not about whether Depp was criminally guilty of a violent offence, but instead about whether the description "wife beater" (as it would be understood by the public) was accurate.

[GloatingSwine]

It is my understanding that this is false; in the US the burden of proof is upon the party seeking damages to prove that the story was false.

It’s actually more than that. In the US the party seeking damages has to prove that the statement was either knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth. (Not just that it is false but that the defendant knew or should have known that it was)

If the plaintiff is also a public figure they need to also show that it was made with defamatory intent to cause specific harm (the Actual Malice standard)

The UK is a much more plaintiff friendly regime for libel because the statement is assumed to be false and the defendant has to demonstrate that it is true (essentially a presumption of guilt). Which makes the UK a popular destination for Libel tourism because it is much easier for a plaintiff to prevail.

That is also why UK libel judgements are unenforceable in the US.

[Liquor Box]

It’s actually more than that. In the US the party seeking damages has to prove that the statement was either knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth. (Not just that it is false but that the defendant knew or should have known that it was)

If the plaintiff is also a public figure they need to also show that it was made with defamatory intent to cause specific harm (the Actual Malice standard)

The UK is a much more plaintiff friendly regime for libel because the statement is assumed to be false and the defendant has to demonstrate that it is true (essentially a presumption of guilt). Which makes the UK a popular destination for Libel tourism because it is much easier for a plaintiff to prevail.

That is also why UK libel judgements are unenforceable in the US.

I think (although not certain) that's the case in every major common law jurisdiction except the US.

[Xyril]

I'm not sure if you are talking about some overseas jurisdiction, but for the purpose of the Depp/Sun trial the onus was very clearly on the defendant to prove its truth defence.


I'm talking about U.S. jurisdiction, because it's what I know. I'm also talking about the abstract issue raised by Pelee and others I replied to, about whether truth is generally an affirmative defense.

I would have expected you to infer from the context of the reply chains, and my choice of terminology, and the fact that I keep referencing Peelee's kitten punching hypothetical, and not the facts of the Depp case, that I was talking about that side-topic. Since you didn't, I've just told you explicitly now. If I'm still being unclear, I was replying to--and quoted--a post by Peelee. That post, in turn, was a response to--and quoted--this post (emphasis added)


It is my understanding that this is false; in the US the burden of proof is upon the party seeking damages to prove that the story was false.

When folks start threads about a specific topic, the conversation often grows organically and not entirely predictably. Sometimes this means the conversation shifts entirely; other times, this means a few side discussions pop up, exist in parallel with the original topic, and fade out on their own. In some instances, such as the Superman vs. Homelander thread, the conversation ends up narrowing in scope--in that case because most versions of Superman vs. Homelander produce such a one-sided fight that there's no potential for fun debate, but focusing on specific, less powerful incarnations allow for a sustained conversation. In most cases, however, conversations tend to grow in scope: Issues raised by the original topic prompt related topics that aren't quite different enough to spin off into a separate thread, nor do they completely supplant discussion of the original topic. I apologize for your confusion.

As for the rest of your post, most of it wasn't really relevant to my post, since it's talking about how details off me talking about a hypothetical raised by the Depp case don't match the details of the Depp case--and I never asserted that they did.

Also, regarding chaining probabilities--I know that's not how the law works. However, for people from a more qualitative background--and more generally, people who fixate on the idea of assigning probability values to "preponderance of the evidence," "clear and convincing evidence," and "beyond a reasonable doubt"--that line of reasoning is a natural one that nonetheless falls apart once you get into actual practice.

In fact, the whole point was to point out that the purely logical/mathematical way of thinking of standard of proof in terms of probabilities tends to fall apart when you start breaking down the elements of a case. Apparently, I did a poor job articulating that point. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, would you mind reading that part of my previous post again, and letting me know where I lost you?

[Liquor Box]

I'm talking about U.S. jurisdiction, because it's what I know. I'm also talking about the abstract issue raised by Pelee and others I replied to, about whether truth is generally an affirmative defense.

I would have expected you to infer from the context of the reply chains, and my choice of terminology, and the fact that I keep referencing Peelee's kitten punching hypothetical, and not the facts of the Depp case, that I was talking about that side-topic. Since you didn't, I've just told you explicitly now. If I'm still being unclear, I was replying to--and quoted--a post by Peelee. That post, in turn, was a response to--and quoted--this post (emphasis added)



When folks start threads about a specific topic, the conversation often grows organically and not entirely predictably. Sometimes this means the conversation shifts entirely; other times, this means a few side discussions pop up, exist in parallel with the original topic, and fade out on their own. In some instances, such as the Superman vs. Homelander thread, the conversation ends up narrowing in scope--in that case because most versions of Superman vs. Homelander produce such a one-sided fight that there's no potential for fun debate, but focusing on specific, less powerful incarnations allow for a sustained conversation. In most cases, however, conversations tend to grow in scope: Issues raised by the original topic prompt related topics that aren't quite different enough to spin off into a separate thread, nor do they completely supplant discussion of the original topic. I apologize for your confusion.

As for the rest of your post, most of it wasn't really relevant to my post, since it's talking about how details off me talking about a hypothetical raised by the Depp case don't match the details of the Depp case--and I never asserted that they did.

Also, regarding chaining probabilities--I know that's not how the law works. However, for people from a more qualitative background--and more generally, people who fixate on the idea of assigning probability values to "preponderance of the evidence," "clear and convincing evidence," and "beyond a reasonable doubt"--that line of reasoning is a natural one that nonetheless falls apart once you get into actual practice.

In fact, the whole point was to point out that the purely logical/mathematical way of thinking of standard of proof in terms of probabilities tends to fall apart when you start breaking down the elements of a case. Apparently, I did a poor job articulating that point. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, would you mind reading that part of my previous post again, and letting me know where I lost you?

Sure. I assumed the Bob and peelee story was based on UK, because that was the jurisdiction being discussed in the thread, hence why I said "I'm not sure if you are talking about some overseas jurisdiction, but for the purpose of the Depp/Sun trial...". You've now clarified you were talking about somewhere else, so that's fine.

[Bartmanhomer]

I'm talking about U.S. jurisdiction, because it's what I know. I'm also talking about the abstract issue raised by Pelee and others I replied to, about whether truth is generally an affirmative defense.

I would have expected you to infer from the context of the reply chains, and my choice of terminology, and the fact that I keep referencing Peelee's kitten punching hypothetical, and not the facts of the Depp case, that I was talking about that side-topic. Since you didn't, I've just told you explicitly now. If I'm still being unclear, I was replying to--and quoted--a post by Peelee. That post, in turn, was a response to--and quoted--this post (emphasis added)



When folks start threads about a specific topic, the conversation often grows organically and not entirely predictably. Sometimes this means the conversation shifts entirely; other times, this means a few side discussions pop up, exist in parallel with the original topic, and fade out on their own. In some instances, such as the Superman vs. Homelander thread, the conversation ends up narrowing in scope--in that case because most versions of Superman vs. Homelander produce such a one-sided fight that there's no potential for fun debate, but focusing on specific, less powerful incarnations allow for a sustained conversation. In most cases, however, conversations tend to grow in scope: Issues raised by the original topic prompt related topics that aren't quite different enough to spin off into a separate thread, nor do they completely supplant discussion of the original topic. I apologize for your confusion.

As for the rest of your post, most of it wasn't really relevant to my post, since it's talking about how details off me talking about a hypothetical raised by the Depp case don't match the details of the Depp case--and I never asserted that they did.

Also, regarding chaining probabilities--I know that's not how the law works. However, for people from a more qualitative background--and more generally, people who fixate on the idea of assigning probability values to "preponderance of the evidence," "clear and convincing evidence," and "beyond a reasonable doubt"--that line of reasoning is a natural one that nonetheless falls apart once you get into actual practice.

In fact, the whole point was to point out that the purely logical/mathematical way of thinking of standard of proof in terms of probabilities tends to fall apart when you start breaking down the elements of a case. Apparently, I did a poor job articulating that point. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, would you mind reading that part of my previous post again, and letting me know where I lost you?

Not mentioned when people replied multiple quotes which usually indicates an argument such as the Dragonwrought Kobold threads.

[Xyril]

Sure. I assumed the Bob and peelee story was based on UK, because that was the jurisdiction being discussed in the thread,


Yes, and I was confounded by the assumption, because the post literally referenced "in the U.S." Glad we cleared that up.

[JadedDM]

An article (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/hes-radioactive-inside-johnny-depps-self-made-implosion) dropped today at the Hollywood Reporter that does a pretty good job of summing up the entire thing, and including some new stuff I didn't know about--like that apparently Depp did try pretty hard to get Heard fired from Aquaman by pulling strings and calling in favors.

[Brother Oni]

Where i am from the Court has cautioned against a numerical value of "beyond reasonable doubt". But I expect you would have to be far more than 95% sure. There is less than a 5% chance that a given house will burn down in the next year, but people must have reasonable doubt or they would not pay for insurance. There are a number of ways of articulating it, but in essence it means that you are near certain that you are right, such that any doubts are slight and unreasonable.

Definitely not sure on the numbers. I once sat on a jury for an attempted armed robbery (guy tried to rob a checkout clerk with a knife) and we couldn't come to an unanimous decision. The judge then instructed us to come to a 'beyond reasonable doubt'* decision (>=10 jurors), which we then met.

*I can't remember whether that was the exact term he used or one very similar like 'reasonably sure' - it was several years ago.

[GloatingSwine]

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the point at which anyone still arguing otherwise is clearly reaching for tenuous nonsense.

[inespie]

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the point at which anyone still arguing otherwise is clearly reaching for tenuous nonsense.

On this affair, there is now a 132-page ruling on Depp's defamation claims, attesting for at least 12 instance of domestic violence, among others things, made after a three weeks trial and dozens of witness.
And also he is a big risk during production.

I mean.

And while shooting Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales in Australia, Depp swallowed eight ecstasy pills at once, according to testimony in the U.K. case, and embarked on a campaign of terror aimed at Heard. It culminated with the tip of his finger being sliced off, which resulted in his being flown back to Los Angeles for surgery. Pirates was forced to shut down production for two weeks, costing the studio some $350,000 a day. Depp claimed that Heard threw a bottle of alcohol at him, injuring his finger.

If he can't keep together in a professional setting, and has a quite solid document saying he is a wife beater making a lot of noise, I understand why studios don't want to have anything to do with him.

Ho, of course heath come have done some things we don't know about, but until now nothing that made it to a trial, while JD has proved to be quite lawyers prone.

I thus don't understand the "bury them all" stance from the original poster.

[Vinyadan]

If anyone here has Netflix, is it true that it's pulling Depp's movies from the platform?

[GloatingSwine]

No, at least not specifically.

Netflix cycles content in and out as their distribution deals with copyright holders (Warner, Universal, et al) expire and are renegotiated. A number of deals that included movies with Depp in have recently expired and either aren't available to renegotiate because the holders want to use their own platforms instead or just don't have anything in Netflix think they can attract subscribers with.

Johnny Depp hasn't been in any Netflix Originals, which are the only movies that have permanent distribution via Netflix.

[LibraryOgre]

And, if nothing else, Rango is on Netflix right now.

[Antediluvian]

There does seem to be a lot of evidence that she was actually the abuser, or at least responsible for abuse as well. I doubt that anything will really happen to her in the long run. As sad as it is, there are double standards out there and frankly women just don't seem to face charges for this type of thing the same way that men do.