Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Johnny Depp


Ted
 Share

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

He's got no hope of winning

How so? Most of the legal commentators I've seen says it basically comes down to who the jury believes and that there's no actual evidence for any of this, plus she comes across to most people as a massive fucking liar with only the backing of her best friend and her sister. How come he has no hope at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

How so? Most of the legal commentators I've seen says it basically comes down to who the jury believes and that there's no actual evidence for any of this, plus she comes across to most people as a massive fucking liar with only the backing of her best friend and her sister. How come he has no hope at all?

Because for defamation he has to prove it was both false and knowingly stated with malice. That's a high bar in what is essentially a he said, she said case.

 

She seems unhinged, but if the jury believe there was so much as one instance of abuse - be it physical or mental - towards her then her statement of being a victim isn't a falsehood. Doesn't matter is she's also the guilty of abuse, a person can be both, particularly in a toxic relationship, which this seems like.

 

I don't think he ever really thought he'd win, but it was a way to get everything out in the open and let the public decide. In that sense, it seems in the court of public opinion he's already won.

 

My money's on the jury finding both suit and counter-suit unproven, and no one gets anything other than the lawyers.

 

*all this is based on reading click-bait

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

Because for defamation he has to prove it was both false and knowingly stated with malice. That's a high bar in what is essentially a he said, she said case.

 

She seems unhinged, but if the jury believe there was so much as one instance of abuse - be it physical or mental - towards her then her statement of being a victim isn't a falsehood. Doesn't matter is she's also the guilty of abuse, a person can be both, particularly in a toxic relationship, which this seems like.

 

I don't think he ever really thought he'd win, but it was a way to get everything out in the open and let the public decide. In that sense, it seems in the court of public opinion he's already won.

 

My money's on the jury finding both suit and counter-suit unproven, and no one gets anything other than the lawyers.

 

*all this is based on reading click-bait

I think the malice part is seen up. Proving a negative is going to be difficult though. If they think she is a liar, it could well be a win. I do doubt it though, but I don’t think it’s cut and dry just yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defamation in the states is a much tougher case than in the UK. If you prove the statement was made and it caused serious harm to a reputation then the burden is on the other side to prove it was a true statement etc. So defamation here favours the claimant

 

In the US it is different  if the person is a public figure. You have to show the statement was made with malice. You have to show the statement was made knowing it was false or acted with reckless disregard as to whether it was true or false.

 

This is normally a tough burden and most public figures do not bother suing because the courts etc lean towards the First Amendment. Look at Vernon Unsworth he guy who sued Elon Musk  for the paedo guy remark and lost. In the UK he would have been lining his pockets.

 

The key issue here is not whether Depp abused her (he clearly did even if she was the more abusive partner) its the portrayal of herself as an innocent victim of abuse and painting Depp as the sole abuser.

 

If the jury has taken against Heard (and reports suggest they might have done) then could conclude the Op Ed piece was malicious is she knew she was not an innocent victim of abuse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

I don't give a fuck who wins I just hope Depp can somehow sue the arse off that horrible cunt dan wootton or beat the shit out of him either 

There’s a queue longer than out of Manchester airport to do that. Horrific cunt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Absolutely. Vilest about. 

Good job he’s one of those good foreigners we like so much in this country otherwise he’d be on a plane to Rwanda.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, polymerpunkah said:

Perhaps there's some method to this madness.

 

Just looking at my (pirated) streaming service, and all of the PotC movies are near the top of the "popular" list.

 

If Johnny's got part of the back end, then he'll be rolling in it.

 

 

Well, I think there's a few reasons to do it even if he didn't think he'd win. First is to show her for what she is and destroy her career. That seems to be why he fought for it to be a public trial. He and his team know how hard it is to win a libel/defamation case but that's not the only way to make it look like he's not this mad abuser that she claims he is. I think people being able to see she's a fucking mental case liar for themselves will do nearly as much as a libel/defamation case win would in the court of public opinion. The residuals... who knows, he probably gets loads from those being popular but this case would be incredibly costly in terms of legal costs. He might well get more roles after this trial is over, and if he wins it then... fuck yeah, he's back in the big time. Seems worth it either way. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.vice.com/en/article/3ab3yk/daily-wire-amber-heard-johnny-depp

 

Quote

The Daily Wire Spent Thousands of Dollars Promoting Anti-Amber Heard Propaganda

The conservative media outlet ran Facebook and Instagram ads for stories backing Johnny Depp, an investigation by media non-profit the Citizens for VICE World News found.

The Daily Wire spent tens of thousands of dollars promoting misleading news about the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial on social media, the Citizens and VICE World News can reveal.

The conservative outlet, founded by Ben Shapiro, is currently the second most popular news publisher on Facebook. It has so far spent between $35,000 and $47,000 on Facebook and Instagram ads promoting articles about the trial, eliciting some four million impressions. The majority of these ads promote one-sided articles and videos with a clear bias against Heard. They are largely promoted via the Facebook pages of high profile conservative figures including right-wing commentator Candace Owens.

Hollywood actor Depp is suing his ex-wife and actor Heard for $50 million, for a 2018 opinion piece she wrote in the Washington Post that described herself as “a public figure representing domestic abuse.” Depp’s team maintains that the piece was about him, though Heard did not name him directly. Heard in turn filed a counterclaim for $100 million in damages. They have accused each other of abuse, which they each deny. The case, taking place in Fairfax, Virginia, US, is ongoing.

The case has become the subject of extensive online commentary and scrutiny in the US. According to data from social-media tracking firm NewsWhip, from the 4th of April to the 16th of May the Depp Heard trial amassed more social media interactions per published article than any other topic, including the Russia Ukraine war or reproductive rights. “Pro-Depp” and “anti-Heard” content in particular has gained traction online; from hashtags such as #amberheardisapsycopath [sic] trending on Twitter to lip syncs mocking Heard’s abuse testimony going viral on TikTok.

Dozens of sites are currently running thousands of Facebook ads capitalising on the trial, which has seen harrowing testimonies and allegations of physical, sexual and emotional abuse from both sides. The adverts are part of an ecosystem of ad supported “news” sites, bogus content platforms and click-bait websites which facilitate the spread of misleading, false and polarising content.

Media non-profit the Citizens analysed data from the Facebook ad library, which discloses estimates of how much pages spend on adverts. The analysis shows how the Daily Wire sought to capitalise on the hype around the trial to draw readers to its site while pushing its conservative agenda. Two of the ads are still being promoted now, and have been running for the past fortnight.

One ad promotes an article titled, “The Attempted Character Assassination of Johnny Depp”, which says that “the only negative words written about the Hollywood A-lister came from the occasional film critic. Until he married Amber Heard.” The article included false claims.

It mentions a previous court case, when Depp sued British tabloid newspaper The Sun for libel after it labelled him a “wife beater” in relation to Heard’s allegations of domestic abuse – a case that Depp lost. The article said that, “Depp was able to disprove 12 of Heard’s 14 allegations” but “because proving a negative is nearly impossible, the judge in the case branded him a ‘monster’ and refused to accept his claims.” In reality the judge said it was more likely than not that 12 out of the 14 instances of abuse alleged had occurred. Evidence presented during the trial showed how both Depp and Heard had referred to Depp as having a “monster” side to his personality, with the judge quoting this term in his judgment.

The Daily Wire and Facebook were contacted for comment in response to this article and had not responded at the time of publication. After VICE World News contacted the Daily Wire an editor’s note was added to “The Attempted Character Assassination of Johnny Depp”, stating “A previous version of this article incorrectly stated Depp was able to disprove 12 of the 14 allegations against him. It has been corrected to note he was not able to disprove 12 of the allegations.”

The Daily Wire spent an estimated $20,000 to $25,000 on the advert promoting this article - about half of its total spend on ads about the trial.

The ad was promoted on the Facebook page of right-wing commentator Owens, who has 5.4 million Facebook followers and is the former communications director of conservative non-profit Turning Point USA. Owens wrote, “I hope Johnny Depp bankrupts Amber Heard with his lawsuit. It has been absolutely ridiculous to see what that woman has been allowed to do because she flew under the radar of the MeToo movement. Amber Heard is the perfect example of what I refer to as ‘toxic femininity’.” The ad got three million impressions on Facebook and Instagram. 

The Daily Wire spent between $10,700 and $15,799 promoting another article that gives a partial account of the trial. “The 14 Most Shocking Revelations In The Johnny Depp, Amber Heard Defamation Trial” is linked to by Owens’s page along with a post describing herself as “squarely team Depp,” while another ad from the Daily Wire’s own page to the story calls the trial as “must-see TV.”  

The article repeatedly reports Depp’s claims while barely mentioning Heard’s, with 11 of the 14 “revelations” framed in favour of Depp. It leads with the allegation made by Depp that Heard defecated in their bed after a fight; a claim which resulted in hackers changing the actor’s name on IMDB to “Amber Turd”. The story does not reference Heard’s counterclaim that the faeces was their dog’s. One of the “revelations” acknowledges that “Depp didn’t completely come across as a victim” in an audio clip where he referenced beating Heard, but emphasises that Depp denied this and insisted she was the abuser.

At the very bottom of the article, readers are told, “The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire”.

The Daily Wire has also been promoting videos on Facebook. “Amber Heard is at fault,” Owens said in one such video. “This man [Depp] lost his entire career based on allegations absent of a shred of evidence,” said Owens, contradicting the judgment of the UK court which ruled that 12 allegations of abuse by Depp towards Heard more likely than not did occur. “It is everything that I say is wrong with the MeToo movement. It is emblematic of the idea that women should just magically be believed,” added Owens.

Michael Knowles, another commentator whose video is advertised on Facebook by the Daily Wire under the title “LOL: This is The BEST Moment From The Johnny Depp Vs. Amber Heard Trial” says Heard is “obviously a complete lunatic”, but also blames Depp for not taking “control of his household,” asking “whatever happened to strong men?” The thumbnail image for the video ad shows Knowles laughing and pointing, alongside photos from court of Depp laughing, and Heard looking tearful.

The Daily Wire was founded in 2015 by Shapiro, a political commentator and former editor of Breitbart News, and film director turned commentator Jeremy Boreing. Media Matters, a US watchdog, has accused the Daily Wire of “bigotry and hatred,” spreading climate change denial, misogyny and homophobia.

The Daily Wire is “at the border of news and disinformation,” said Nandini Jammi, co-founder of adtech industry watchdog Check My Ads. The site “will have a handful of stories that are more or less technically accurate, and then the rest of them are indefensible… But they continue to get away with it,” she said. Media Matters, a US watchdog, has described the Daily Wire as “a cesspool of bigotry and hatred” citing examples of racism, sexism and anti-abortion extremism.

Jammi described identifying and weighing in on narratives with high engagement on social media as “a tried and true playbook that all the disinformation websites that pose as conservative websites are using now as part of their business model.”

The ongoing Depp-Heard case in Virginia has been low hanging fruit for such operations.

Heidi Beirich, co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism said the Daily Wire “feeds into” misogynistic sentiments of its readership by attacking Amber Heard. "This particular publication is a very successful conduit of material from the far extremes and mainstreaming it into the conservative circles," she said.

In recent years, the Daily Wire has often had close to double the engagements on Facebook of any of its competitors. But it has also broken the rules. A 2019 investigation by Popular Information uncovered a network of 14 large Facebook pages that exclusively promote content from the Daily Wire, without their pages revealing their connection to the outlet – appearing to violate Facebook’s rules in the process. The Daily Wire and Facebook did not respond when asked if the Daily Wire’s actions violated Facebook’s terms of service.

Matt Rivitz, co-founder of social media activism campaign group Sleeping Giants, said Facebook’s business model was “tearing us apart as a society.” “The louder and more obnoxious and more conspiratorial content is, the more engagement it's going to get,” which in turn increases cash flow from the advertising they get from the clicks, he said.

Sleeping Giants was launched in reaction to the hateful content found on Breitbart News in 2016. Disavowed even by other Conservative outlets for its white nationalist content, Breitbart News (with Steve Bannon at the helm) threw its weight behind Donald Trump and his style of politics during the 2016 US Presidential Election campaign. Its headlines have included “Donald Trump’s Criticisms of Mass Mexican Immigration Barely Scratch the Surface” and “Why White People Seek Black Privilege.”

According to Jammi of Check My Ads, social media users are in a “symbiotic relationship” with outlets like the Daily Wire, which benefit financially from users peddling controversial content. Social media users provide “relevancy to a narrative that is very lucrative” for sites like the Daily Wire which are motivated to publish more content around it. This in turn gives social media users a sense of legitimacy to continue posting these narratives on platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

Rivitz said the only way to change this pattern is for social media companies like Facebook to stop rewarding engagement over quality and facts. “But right now they’re not doing that as their job.”

“The ultimate outcome of this is the demonisation of women,” said Beirich of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism reflecting on the Depp and Heard case and how online activity can directly translate into violence against women and misogynistic terrorism. “Women face a completely different online milieu and offline milieu than men do.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Well, I think there's a few reasons to do it even if he didn't think he'd win. First is to show her for what she is and destroy her career. That seems to be why he fought for it to be a public trial. He and his team know how hard it is to win a libel/defamation case but that's not the only way to make it look like he's not this mad abuser that she claims he is. I think people being able to see she's a fucking mental case liar for themselves will do nearly as much as a libel/defamation case win would in the court of public opinion. The residuals... who knows, he probably gets loads from those being popular but this case would be incredibly costly in terms of legal costs. He might well get more roles after this trial is over, and if he wins it then... fuck yeah, he's back in the big time. Seems worth it either way. 

Not sure about that mate. History only remembers the winners, if Heard wins ( and I don’t believe her for a nanosecond) I think she comes out of it not only intact but possibly even enhanced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Captain Howdy said:

Not sure about that mate. History only remembers the winners, if Heard wins ( and I don’t believe her for a nanosecond) I think she comes out of it not only intact but possibly even enhanced. 

If she gets her tits done it could make me go back to liking her a bit more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Captain Howdy said:

Not sure about that mate. History only remembers the winners, if Heard wins ( and I don’t believe her for a nanosecond) I think she comes out of it not only intact but possibly even enhanced. 

She comes out looking like a liar, I reckon. She looks like such a lying, manipulative sociopath. The amount of people supporting Depp here is about 1000 to 1. I get what you're saying, but a win here is only them saying 'can't prove she defamed you', which would mean the countersuit would fail too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

She comes out looking like a liar, I reckon. She looks like such a lying, manipulative sociopath. The amount of people supporting Depp here is about 1000 to 1. I get what you're saying, but a win here is only them saying 'can't prove she defamed you', which would mean the countersuit would fail too. 

Hope you’re right mate I really do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

If she gets her tits done it could make me go back to liking her a bit more. 

 

9 minutes ago, Captain Howdy said:

Hope you’re right mate I really do

Would have been the hetro response. 

 

 

 

.......

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...