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.
There's something to what you say about women who speak out, but again I'll point out that unless someone has intimate knowledge of this couples' marriage, every opinion is simply guesswork. And that helps no one.
Edited to add: Misogyny was readily apparent in this trial. No doubt. The twist comes when Depp claims to be a victim just fighting back, but it did remind us that women have a far harder time proving they're a victim than men do.
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.
I'll never understand why this one celebrity case was fodder for the sensationalists. Even the news shows. How was this news? But it has brought about plenty of comment, most of which is strictly speculation and opinion.
I'm not going to take sides, mainly because I have no idea what the real truth is, and I really don't care. My main concern is that any abuse case should become a conversation piece with little regard for the people involved or the fact that no one knows the truth of the situation besides the two people involved.
The fact that so many opportunists glommed on to both of them and went on the attack makes it even worse. The things they did to each other wasn't the only abuse in this case. If women who are victims of abuse see this as a sign to keep silent, you can be sure that was the intent of some of the opportunists. We can work on changing that, as we've always done, and try to learn lessons from this case instead of thinking our only contribution is to take sides.
I agree, by the way, that Amber didn't use Johnny's name in her Op-Ed, and there are no signs that she was talking about her own domestic abuse and not abuses against women in general. I don't see the cause for a defamation suit, but it happened, right down to a jury trial. I can only hope there are lessons learned from this.
What a tawdry mess. I had to look up DARVO. (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender) I have to wonder why, with all of that evidence, Depp would even consider putting on a defamation circus like that. His drug use and anger issues are well known, as well as his roaring ego. He was never going to make a reliable witness, yet there it is--he won.
One thing in the article I don't necessarily agree with--that Johnny Depp will emerge unscathed. I think he's done. He'll end up making B movies and doing gigs that are nowhere near the successes he once had. He won't suddenly turn into the virtuous victim. He's too self-destructive to pull that off.
I don't know what will happen to Amber Heard, but she's a women's rights activist already so even if she doesn't get the acting roles she might have wanted, I think this trial will cement her position in that community. I honestly don't know. But I don't see that it did either of them any good in the long run.
It certainly didn't do her any good and I'm sure she didn't want it. I sincerely hope you're right about Depp but, at least according to the article (because I didn't like Depp before and didn't follow him), he was already on the downhill slide.
Before the verdict, everything I read kept saying he'd never win. Legal analysts - and common sense - said he didn't have a leg to stand on but they didn't include misogyny in their arguments. That always defies logic. They also imagined the jury would weigh the evidence on their merits instead of be influenced by social media. And yes, I know the judge instructed them to stay away from it but come on. They were never going to do that unless forced.
Depp put on the circus because he could. Winning wasn't the point. It was to punish Heard and he certainly did that. Even if she'd won, he still would've gotten what he wanted. This verdict has to be beyond his wildest dreams. I also think he wanted to push back on #MeToo and let women know there would be consequences (as if there weren't already) of accusing men of being terrible. He won there too.
Men being terrible has been true from the dawn of time (probably), so that wasn't a surprise to me. What did surprise me (at least somewhat) was all the internalized misogyny from women, even other DV survivors. I shouldn't have been surprised. I should've known better. But I keep hoping for people to heed their better angels. I don't know if my constant disappointment and discouragement is better or worse than cynicism which never expects the best from people.
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.
There's something to what you say about women who speak out, but again I'll point out that unless someone has intimate knowledge of this couples' marriage, every opinion is simply guesswork. And that helps no one.
Edited to add: Misogyny was readily apparent in this trial. No doubt. The twist comes when Depp claims to be a victim just fighting back, but it did remind us that women have a far harder time proving they're a victim than men do.
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.
I'll never understand why this one celebrity case was fodder for the sensationalists. Even the news shows. How was this news? But it has brought about plenty of comment, most of which is strictly speculation and opinion.
I'm not going to take sides, mainly because I have no idea what the real truth is, and I really don't care. My main concern is that any abuse case should become a conversation piece with little regard for the people involved or the fact that no one knows the truth of the situation besides the two people involved.
The fact that so many opportunists glommed on to both of them and went on the attack makes it even worse. The things they did to each other wasn't the only abuse in this case. If women who are victims of abuse see this as a sign to keep silent, you can be sure that was the intent of some of the opportunists. We can work on changing that, as we've always done, and try to learn lessons from this case instead of thinking our only contribution is to take sides.
I agree, by the way, that Amber didn't use Johnny's name in her Op-Ed, and there are no signs that she was talking about her own domestic abuse and not abuses against women in general. I don't see the cause for a defamation suit, but it happened, right down to a jury trial. I can only hope there are lessons learned from this.
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.
What a tawdry mess. I had to look up DARVO. (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender) I have to wonder why, with all of that evidence, Depp would even consider putting on a defamation circus like that. His drug use and anger issues are well known, as well as his roaring ego. He was never going to make a reliable witness, yet there it is--he won.
One thing in the article I don't necessarily agree with--that Johnny Depp will emerge unscathed. I think he's done. He'll end up making B movies and doing gigs that are nowhere near the successes he once had. He won't suddenly turn into the virtuous victim. He's too self-destructive to pull that off.
I don't know what will happen to Amber Heard, but she's a women's rights activist already so even if she doesn't get the acting roles she might have wanted, I think this trial will cement her position in that community. I honestly don't know. But I don't see that it did either of them any good in the long run.
It certainly didn't do her any good and I'm sure she didn't want it. I sincerely hope you're right about Depp but, at least according to the article (because I didn't like Depp before and didn't follow him), he was already on the downhill slide.
Before the verdict, everything I read kept saying he'd never win. Legal analysts - and common sense - said he didn't have a leg to stand on but they didn't include misogyny in their arguments. That always defies logic. They also imagined the jury would weigh the evidence on their merits instead of be influenced by social media. And yes, I know the judge instructed them to stay away from it but come on. They were never going to do that unless forced.
Depp put on the circus because he could. Winning wasn't the point. It was to punish Heard and he certainly did that. Even if she'd won, he still would've gotten what he wanted. This verdict has to be beyond his wildest dreams. I also think he wanted to push back on #MeToo and let women know there would be consequences (as if there weren't already) of accusing men of being terrible. He won there too.
Men being terrible has been true from the dawn of time (probably), so that wasn't a surprise to me. What did surprise me (at least somewhat) was all the internalized misogyny from women, even other DV survivors. I shouldn't have been surprised. I should've known better. But I keep hoping for people to heed their better angels. I don't know if my constant disappointment and discouragement is better or worse than cynicism which never expects the best from people.