Thank you for writing this. I wanted to write something in the same vein, but I’m not in the right head space to muster it up at the moment. We are living in a very polarizing time, and I believe that this trial is another example of how we continue to miss the nuance in everything, including intimate parter violence. In my experience as a social worker, two people can be abusive toward each other - it is less common, but it does exist. That being said, the media and court of public opinion demonized Heard and discredited her word using misogynist tactics that are old as time. The legal question was about defamation, but I am fearful that the precedent set here will reinforce the damning message that women who speak out about their experiences don’t stand a legal chance.
I stayed away from the trial as much as I could but, of course, it was everywhere. As a family psychologist, I've dealt with intimate partner violence and it's terrible. It's also complicated with many victims fighting back or sometimes even instigating the violence in order to get it over with (the cycle of violence is indeed real). People who've never actively experienced it often don't understand and form opinions they shouldn't. That's why this trial never, ever should've been publicized. Not only do people not realize how trials are structured (you only get a portion of the truth) but they've also been viewing it as entertainment. It's gross and damaging.
My deep fear is that, as a result of this trial, women survivors of IPV will keep their silence even more. Abusers will use the threat of defamation even more than they already do. That's already happening and I'm pretty sure that's what Depp did too. I read Amber Heard's op-ed and it never even mentioned him, not even obliquely. I also read snippets from the trial and what he did to her was abusive.
From a legal standpoint, it never even mattered if Heard was abusive to Depp. If he was abusive to her even once (and he clearly was), then she didn't defame him. The UK court got it right but leave it to Americans to be blinded by celebrity and so-called men's rights. It matters that the jury was made up mostly of men (5 men, 2 women). It also matters that right-wing extremist groups paid for Heard-hating pieces all over the internet. This was always about shutting women up and they were wildly successful.
Thank you for writing this. I wanted to write something in the same vein, but I’m not in the right head space to muster it up at the moment. We are living in a very polarizing time, and I believe that this trial is another example of how we continue to miss the nuance in everything, including intimate parter violence. In my experience as a social worker, two people can be abusive toward each other - it is less common, but it does exist. That being said, the media and court of public opinion demonized Heard and discredited her word using misogynist tactics that are old as time. The legal question was about defamation, but I am fearful that the precedent set here will reinforce the damning message that women who speak out about their experiences don’t stand a legal chance.
I am in total agreement with Bex and you.
I stayed away from the trial as much as I could but, of course, it was everywhere. As a family psychologist, I've dealt with intimate partner violence and it's terrible. It's also complicated with many victims fighting back or sometimes even instigating the violence in order to get it over with (the cycle of violence is indeed real). People who've never actively experienced it often don't understand and form opinions they shouldn't. That's why this trial never, ever should've been publicized. Not only do people not realize how trials are structured (you only get a portion of the truth) but they've also been viewing it as entertainment. It's gross and damaging.
My deep fear is that, as a result of this trial, women survivors of IPV will keep their silence even more. Abusers will use the threat of defamation even more than they already do. That's already happening and I'm pretty sure that's what Depp did too. I read Amber Heard's op-ed and it never even mentioned him, not even obliquely. I also read snippets from the trial and what he did to her was abusive.
From a legal standpoint, it never even mattered if Heard was abusive to Depp. If he was abusive to her even once (and he clearly was), then she didn't defame him. The UK court got it right but leave it to Americans to be blinded by celebrity and so-called men's rights. It matters that the jury was made up mostly of men (5 men, 2 women). It also matters that right-wing extremist groups paid for Heard-hating pieces all over the internet. This was always about shutting women up and they were wildly successful.
For those wanting to read an excellent article by one of my favorite and trusted journalists, check out this piece: https://slate.com/culture/2022/06/johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial-verdict-evidence-truth.html. Hobbes absolutely nailed the DV dynamics and how this was always about a DARVO situation.