You better be talking about Depp and not Jeff Beck, you heathen!
Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp | Depp wins on all 3 counts
- Thread starter Reapersoul20
- Start date
This is just the perfect picture of the level of this thread. Defamation and libel, civil infractions punished and enacted by the state, are not first amendment issues.
Great stuff.
There are first amendment issues in the case and they apply evenly to both Heard and Waldman/Depp.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you get to make up lies about someone, use lawyers to create a veil of truth to protect the lie, then destroy someone's reputation without owing compensation for the damages caused.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you get to make up lies about someone, use lawyers to create a veil of truth to protect the lie, then destroy someone's reputation without owing compensation for the damages caused.
It's long established that the first amendment doesn't protect you from damages is it not? Really don't see how this case is questioning coverage by first amendment as you claim, it was a tiny footnote in one statement from memory.
The judge seems to have stated the jury can find against Heard for any separate claim now. That would mean if they believe the rape/sexual assault claim was a lie then she's lost.
I thought Depp would obviously lose this but I'm not so sure now.
Depp was never going to lose this based on what the law technically says. Jury most often than not use their own judgement on whether who is right and who si wrong. If they think Amber somehow wronged Depp and sympathize with Depp's side, regardless if "technically" she didn't mention Depp in the article, they'll still side with Depp.
It's established that some speech is not covered by free speech laws, the first amendment in the US. One example is knowingly making false statements about other people, which under certain conditions is unprotected speech and therefore punishable, usually civilly by e.g. paying damages.
That's the whole point of this case. Are Heard's comments protected as free speech, or are they defamatory and therefore not? If they're true then they're obviously protected, if they're false then the question is if they breach the threshold of defamation.
Shrug. If the jury needs more time then anything can happen
Thanks that makes sense, just framing I guess. I don't think the right to make truthful claims was ever in contention hence the focus solely on whether it's defamation or not. I don't think most layman would see that as a first amendment issue as it's widely understood defamation isn't covered.
I'd argue her lawyer only brought it up so as to lead/reinforce the idea that the statements were truthful. Which is his job so would be odd if he didn't.
Yes, given the amount of time it's taking I think we can infer that they are taking it seriously and are trying to be technical.
That could be bad news for Depp depending on what they fixate on.
Yes but that's why it is a first amendment issue, the question of defamation is inherently that question. To say that it's not a first amendment issue because defamation isn't covered is wrong on two levels. In the big picture what is or isn't, or what should or shouldn't be protected by the first amendment are first amendment questions. And, in this specific case saying that it isn't a first amendment issue because defamation isn't covered is simply begging the question. If the jury finds for Heard then they're saying that it isn't defamation exactly because her speech is protected by the first amendment.
These are free speech questions in the same way that all the other speech questions are. Anti-protest laws, harassment, assault, incitement of hatred, threats, advertisement, porn, lobbying, blackmail. Are these things allowed or not? Where are the limits? The answer to these questions differ from country to country, and when we as a society decide on the answers we are drawing the limits of free speech. Several countries, including the US, used to have much stricter rules about porn than we have now, meaning that we have moved in the direction of more free speech in that domain. On the other hand, several countries have introduced hate speech laws, meaning that we have moved in the direction of less free speech here. When people say that hate speech isn't free speech, that doesn't mean that it isn't a question of free speech.
It will be interesting to see. I think she’d just about get away with the pledged/donated thing, although to me there is obviously a significant difference, but if it can be shown she’s somehow altered photographic evidence that seems way way more serious. You clearly can’t sue someone for £100m based on falsified evidence (if that’s what she’s done). I should add I’m not convinced she has done that deliberately.
Last edited:
Amber Heard is doing an any % Speed run of 'Anglosphere Perjury Tour'. Can't wait to see how she does Canada and New Zealand 
Good article on the BBC today regarding the trial and the social media aspect.
Just proves what I've said all along:
And from its early days, it was clear the overwhelming weight of online traffic was siding with Johnny Depp and deeply suspicious of Amber Heard.
Well worth a read, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61649522.amp
Just proves what I've said all along:
And from its early days, it was clear the overwhelming weight of online traffic was siding with Johnny Depp and deeply suspicious of Amber Heard.
Well worth a read, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61649522.amp
That’s what you’d expect though and all the legal experts said would happen - not because of anything sinister but because they went first…what hasn’t happened that they predicted was the public opinion would swing back against Depp once Heard had been heard (no pun intended) and looking at this thread the main reason seems to be, aside from lots of subplots and narratives about her, simply a lack of any kind of tangible evidence
The article suggests a huge amount of fake profiles/bots created that are commenting on this trial, which could well be the reason why the support for Heardio is being drowned out.
18billion views for pro Deppo videos is both insane and shocking in equal measure.
There's no way that wouldn't drown any support for Heardio out.
Almost like someone is running a bit factory...
Hmm, I wonder. Is it the ordinary people on twitter that can watch the trial and decide for themselves... or the big media corporations that are all shilling for Amber? Really curious indeed
I expected the public perception of the trial to become more contentious and more evenly split as Heard's case in chief went on..
She had nothing of note to back her story up. Everything relies heavily on believing her, or her formerly close friends who supported her during her divorce so have a risk of perjury from their statements in support of the TRO.
Pretty much all her evidence originates from her saying things and she has been shown again and again to be a liar, even about the smallest things. It's ridiculous.
She had nothing of note to back her story up. Everything relies heavily on believing her, or her formerly close friends who supported her during her divorce so have a risk of perjury from their statements in support of the TRO.
Pretty much all her evidence originates from her saying things and she has been shown again and again to be a liar, even about the smallest things. It's ridiculous.
It suggests a more normal rise in fake accounts at around 11%. Which still leaves 89% of accounts as real people. The report also doesn't indicate whether those bots are pro heard or pro depp, most likely the majority are just bots commenting to make it look like they are real to then be used for other activities outside not related to this case.
Did you read this part?
We were amazed to see that actually nearly 11% of the conversation around the trial was driven by fake accounts, which is a very high number,"
Also, it suggests without actually stating that the large proportion are pro Deppo,
Hence the 18billion pro Deppo video views.
They don't breakdown what driven is, a lot of bot accounts comment on things to build up a "real" profile of their account.
Either way it doesn't seem that it suggests one way or the other whether the "driven" convo was pro depp or heard
She may as well claim she's doing it in honor of the Queen for her platinum jubilee by doing it in every Commonwealth nation.Amber Heard is doing an any % Speed run of 'Anglosphere Perjury Tour'. Can't wait to see how she does Canada and New Zealand
The first amendment doesn't come into this case. If Heard is lying, then it's defamation & the first amendment doesn't protect it. If she's telling the truth then the first amendment is irrelevant as you don't need an amendment to come to your defence for telling the truth. The first amendment does protect false statements of fact if they're made in private, which does not apply to the Washington post or to Twitter. The first amendment generally protects statements of opinion, i.e if she said "Johnny was the worst partner I've ever had", even though it's a negative assertion it would still be judged as an opinion & therefore likely protected. We also have the fact that this is even a trial at all, if the first amendment was relevant then the judge wouldn't have let this go to trial in the first place.
I'd say considering the article makes a big deal of 18 billion pro Deppo video views and hashtags, and states that the online chatter is predominantly pro Deppo, it stands to reason majority of these bots are also pro Deppo, wouldn't take a stretch of the imagination to think this?
How do you come to that conclusion when the article you linked clearly says even if 11% were bots the other 89% are real people....
Seems an odd way to try and fool yourself into believing that overwhelming support for Depp is some kind of myth.
What percentage of the videos/video views were considered fake? If it's the same 11% then 16 billion views were real.
I read that this morning, it is a good article. You're misrepresenting it a bit though, the general feeling it gives is that people are forming their own opinions with the evidence, rather than being told what to believe. The bot part also only states that 1 study found 11% of Twitter conversation to be from bots but that study never says anything about which side the bots are on & we already know multiple other studies have found the vast majority of the bots to be pro-Heard.
I'll claim credit for a decent share of those views.
I'm not trying to fool myself into thinking anything
I linked an article which has highlighted that online chatter is majority pro Deppo, which is what I have been saying repeatedly in this thread.
Do you think that is due to Bots?I'm not trying to fool myself into thinking anything
I linked an article which has highlighted that online chatter is majority pro Deppo, which is what I have been saying repeatedly in this thread.
The article does not highlight that at all, it speaks of there being a study where 11% of the conversation around this topic is driven by bots. The article does not, at any point, say that the study found the bots to be pro-Depp. If you weren't such a fecking brainlet you'd look up the Cybara study the article is quoting & find that the Cybara study found that the overwhelming majority of those bots were making positive posts for Amber Heard & negative posts for Johnny Depp. Seriously, do some research.I'm not trying to fool myself into thinking anything
I linked an article which has highlighted that online chatter is majority pro Deppo, which is what I have been saying repeatedly in this thread.
Last edited:
I'd be interested to see those other studies.
Some other stats for you:
On TikTok, the #justiceforjohnnydepp tag has more than 6.8 billion views, while the #IStandWithAmberHeard tag has just 2.4 million views.
On Twitter, some pro-Depp posts have received more likes than Heard’s entire 207,900 following
The Heardio bots were majority product placements, however the numbers given in the previous articles I've seen do not match up to what the latest numbers given by the BBC article, which suggests a massive change as the trial has gone on in regards to bots.
Yes because the overwhelming evidence in this case favours Depp. Are you purposely being obtuse?I'm not trying to fool myself into thinking anything
I linked an article which has highlighted that online chatter is majority pro Deppo, which is what I have been saying repeatedly in this thread.
If you delete your account, that'll be one less Heard-Bot on the internet.
Who knows, but the figures in that article suggest that the bot level is extremely high now with regards to online talk about the trial,
So I'd say that there's an argument to be had that bots are a cause for a small portion of the hashtags etc, and have been increasing as the trial has gone on.
Have you spoken with any human beings over the last few weeks?
I know I'm a bot but what about you guys?
Feck sake
I've stated previously in this thread that people were pro Deppo before the trial started, this article highlights that at the start of the trial the online talk was predominantly pro Deppo.
So no, I'm not being obtuse, I'm linking an article which has shown something that I mentioned earlier in the thread.
Didn't realize it would trigger so many people
He's literally quoting a study that found the overwhelming majority of bots to be pro-Heard & anti-Depp. He's using that study to support his claim that the vast majority of bots are pro-Depp.
This is literally like me going "Hey guys, this study says that smoking causes lung cancer. I guess that proves what I've been saying all along that smoking cures cancer!". I'm convinced he's a social experiment to see how long he can WUM without getting banned.
Last edited: