IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd June 2022, 10:01 AM   #521
IsThisTheLife
Muse
 
IsThisTheLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 773
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I didn't watch the trial and have no opinion on the issues that you raise. I accept as a matter of legal fact what the verdict decided and nothing outside of that. The minutiae of the case as dissected by online sleuths do not interest me in the slightest.
Do you also accept the "legal facts" established in the Sun libel trial?
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 10:14 AM   #522
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 25,202
I’m stepping in late, but on the news this morning it was mentioned that Depp won largely based on the online title of an article posted under Heards name that she didn’t write. And Heard won her bit based on comments made by Depp’s former lawyer. Please correct me if I’m wrong about this. The news is so hyperbolic on this case it’s hard to track down facts. And I didn’t try very hard.

If that is the case, I find it rather amazing. But on the financial front I see two very important pints that aren’t being discussed:

First, I think it is clear that Depp will have a case against his attorney for malpractice and I expect the carrier to settle it quickly.

Second, I think it is possible that Heard will have a case against the publisher for using a headline that defamed her ex-husband IFF she did not have prior knowledge of the headline before publication. I don’t know if this case would be as much of a slam dunk, but I could see the publisher settling for a portion of the damages rather quickly to avoid a trial.

Maybe this has been beaten to death, I don’t know. Didn’t watch the trial haven’t read the whole thread.

As to the message this case sends to women, I think it is the same message that the Smollet sent to black men: there are enough bad things happening in the world, you don’t have to make **** up.

Finally to the observation by the prestige that lawyers aren’t really smooth talkers: most legal work, even most litigation, is written work product. Trial lawyers are smoother than the rest of us, but even good trial lawyers don’t have to be smooth if they are really good writers.
- a lawyer who has only once appeared before a court on behalf of a client on over 20 years.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 10:15 AM   #523
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,516
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
This is called prevarication, look it up.
Thanks, I did. It means "evasive". I'm not being evasive. I'm telling you flat-out that I'm not interested in discussing certain topics. I'm sorry if that upsets you.

Quote:
Those "legal facts" again. Appeal to authority much?
I accept what the verdict legally established. Are you saying I should reject it?

Last edited by johnny karate; 2nd June 2022 at 10:31 AM. Reason: typo
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 10:16 AM   #524
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,516
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
Do you also accept the "legal facts" established in the Sun libel trial?
Why shouldn't I?
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 10:36 AM   #525
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,638
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
.....
And yet, they still managed to do a garbage job at it.

Your second sentence doesn't actually follow from the first. Their stake is reputational, not legal. It looks bad for them to have published a defamatory article, even if they don't have any legal liability for it.

The WashPost is the primary paper in the region where the trial occurred. They had multiple reporters at the trial every day. What specifically -- not "the evil media can't be trusted" -- did the Post report inaccurately?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 11:08 AM   #526
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,997
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I didn't watch the trial and have no opinion on the issues that you raise. I accept as a matter of legal fact what the verdict decided and nothing outside of that. The minutiae of the case as dissected by online sleuths do not interest me in the slightest.
It's very clear that you didn't watch the trial, because you clearly have no idea what happened. This wasn't minutiae of the case that online sleuths dissected. This was dissected on the witness stand, in front of the jury, by Depp's attorney's cross examination of Heard. And it simply demolished her credibility. If you don't even know that this happened, then you've got no business even talking about this case.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 11:14 AM   #527
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,638
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I’m stepping in late, but on the news this morning it was mentioned that Depp won largely based on the online title of an article posted under Heards name that she didn’t write. And Heard won her bit based on comments made by Depp’s former lawyer. Please correct me if I’m wrong about this. The news is so hyperbolic on this case it’s hard to track down facts. And I didn’t try very hard.
.....

This looks like a pretty thorough account of the trial.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/cel...ned/ar-AAWaxfb

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
.....
Second, I think it is possible that Heard will have a case against the publisher for using a headline that defamed her ex-husband IFF she did not have prior knowledge of the headline before publication. I don’t know if this case would be as much of a slam dunk, but I could see the publisher settling for a portion of the damages rather quickly to avoid a trial.
.....
The headline on the piece was pretty much lifted directly from her column, except it uses the phrase "sexual violence" instead of "domestic violence." I dunno if that's enough to make a difference. But Depp was never named or described in the headline or the column. The Post has already added a note about the verdict. If Depp had wanted to pick a fight with Jeff Bezos I think he would have done it by now.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...c36_story.html

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
....
- a lawyer who has only once appeared before a court on behalf of a client on over 20 years.
Did your guy win? Maybe your performance was so decisive that other lawyers fear going up against you.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 11:19 AM   #528
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,997
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The WashPost is the primary paper in the region where the trial occurred. They had multiple reporters at the trial every day. What specifically -- not "the evil media can't be trusted" -- did the Post report inaccurately?
Let's look at one of their coverage pieces:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...l-reflections/

One bit of inaccuracy:
"On the stand, Amber frequently held back tears and sometimes couldn’t hold them back."
No. Amber never cried any tears on the stand. She sobbed a few times, but never any tears. Of note is that her acting coach said she couldn't cry when acting.

But what's much more profound than this inaccurate statement is what's missing from the story. What you omit is just as important as what you include, and you can effectively mislead your audience with an omission just as much as with a lie. And nowhere in any of that story is any mention of the multiple lies that Heard was caught in, and the multiple cases of faked evidence.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 11:29 AM   #529
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,997
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
This looks like a pretty thorough account of the trial.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/cel...ned/ar-AAWaxfb
It's not. I'll give one example:

"Heard was then cross-examined by Depp's attorney Camille Vasquez. She refuted claims from Depp's witnesses, including claims that she called paparazzi to photograph her with bruises on her face outside the courtroom when she filed a restraining order in May 2016 and sent TMZ a video of Depp slamming cabinets during an argument."

Heard didn't refute the claim that she sent TMZ the video of Depp slamming cabinets. She claimed she didn't send it, but the evidence strongly indicates that either she OR someone she authorized did. That's not a refutation, that's just a denial. TMZ requires copyright ownership of the stuff they publish, and they got that ownership within 15 minutes of getting the video. Heard was the original owner of that copyright, since she filmed it. That means Heard, either directly or through an authorized agent, transferred copyright to TMZ at pretty much the same time they provided the video itself. If Heard didn't want TMZ to publish and didn't transfer copyright to them, she could have easily had it taken down, but she didn't. But there's no mention of this in the article. Instead, it's presented as if the claim was unsubstantiated, when in fact it wasn't. This is another case of misrepresentation by omission, and another example of how your reliance on the press creates blind spots for you that you don't even know you have.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 11:32 AM   #530
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,516
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It's very clear that you didn't watch the trial, because you clearly have no idea what happened. This wasn't minutiae of the case that online sleuths dissected. This was dissected on the witness stand, in front of the jury, by Depp's attorney's cross examination of Heard. And it simply demolished her credibility. If you don't even know that this happened, then you've got no business even talking about this case.
I'll keep that in mind in the event that I decide to start talking about the case.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 11:37 AM   #531
IsThisTheLife
Muse
 
IsThisTheLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 773
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Let's look at one of their coverage pieces:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...l-reflections/

...
The entire corporate media are pretty much dancing to the same tune. They wilfully broadcast Amber Heard's unsupported lies for the last five-odd years knowing the damage they were doing to Depp's reputation and career, so it's to be expected.

There are countless more examples of the same mealy-mouthed dissembling going on ("Depp's lawyers claim verdict is a victory for truth and justice" etc', ad nauseam).

**** all of them.
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 11:39 AM   #532
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,997
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I'll keep that in mind in the event that I decide to start talking about the case.
Let's go back to the start of our exchange.

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
No matter how you feel about the outcome of this trial, there's now doubt that it created a blue print for wealthy and powerful abusers to further victimize their accusers.
If Depp is the victim and not the abuser, then how can this trial serve as a blueprint for abusers? This claim begs the question that Depp was the abuser and Heard was his victim. But if the actual trial shows that the reverse was the case, then how could it possibly have the effect that you claim? It cannot. Your position about the trial's effects logically requires you to have a position about the events of the trial itself.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 11:46 AM   #533
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,638
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Let's look at one of their coverage pieces:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...l-reflections/

One bit of inaccuracy:
"On the stand, Amber frequently held back tears and sometimes couldn’t hold them back."
No. Amber never cried any tears on the stand. She sobbed a few times, but never any tears. Of note is that her acting coach said she couldn't cry when acting.

But what's much more profound than this inaccurate statement is what's missing from the story. What you omit is just as important as what you include, and you can effectively mislead your audience with an omission just as much as with a lie. And nowhere in any of that story is any mention of the multiple lies that Heard was caught in, and the multiple cases of faked evidence.

What you're citing is an opinion piece by a Post columnist who is assigned to comment about women's issues. She didn't didn't actually report on the trial. She specifically notes the dueling testimony and even criticizes other media:
Quote:
Johnny says that he never hit Amber. That he occasionally “restrained” her when she was hitting him. He says that she threw a liquor bottle at him and it sliced off the tip of his finger. That she mocked him, berated him, withheld his medication. That she or one of her friends once pooped on his bed.

Amber says Johnny hit her many times, usually when he was drunk or high and believed she was cheating on him. That she had nothing to do with slicing off his finger, but when she woke the next morning he’d used the bloody digit to write weird messages on the wall. That one of their dogs must have pooped on the bed, because seriously, she said, what 30-something woman would do that?

This kind of summary makes it sound bonkers and funny — divorces of the rich and famous — when watching it actually felt commonplace and desperately sad. Gawking and thrilling at celebrities’ dirty laundry is a well-honed spectator sport, but throughout the trial, I kept reading coverage that was tonally a mess: The Daily Beast turned the most incendiary allegations into cheeky bullet points — “The Poop-On-The-Bed Fiasco,” “The Headbutt” — as if detailing a reality-show highlight reel rather than the dissolution of someone’s life and marriage.
You'll have to do better than that. The Post covered each day's testimony iin detail, including the cross-examinations and challenges to witnesses. But it's not the reporter's job to decide who's telling the truth.

Personally I have no doubt that both parties lied through their teeth. But if Depp ever slapped or shoved Heard, cursed her, or threatened her even once in all their time together, she should have won.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 11:51 AM   #534
IsThisTheLife
Muse
 
IsThisTheLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 773
Something I've been hoping is that this case might wake more people up to the deception routinely inflicted on them by the corporate media-whores. It undoubtedly has (there are surely many in thrall who nevertheless aren't completely irredeemable ****wits), it's just a question of how many.
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 11:58 AM   #535
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 56,022
Originally Posted by ZirconBlue View Post
He actually did have a few big movies in the past 5 years (a Pirates movie, Murder on the Orient Express, and the second Fantastic Beasts movie), plus he got a big paycheck for that Fantastic Beasts movie he wasn't even in.
Yes, but except for Pirates, those were supporting roles, his role in Orient Express was little more then a cameo.
His days as a box office draw are over. Of course he will still get work, but he won't get the big male leading roles, ..except if he and Disney can get together to do andother Pirates movie,and even then Jack Sparrow might well be sort of a guest appareance.....and he won't get the kind of money he used to get.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.

Last edited by dudalb; 2nd June 2022 at 12:04 PM.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 11:59 AM   #536
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,638
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It's not. I'll give one example:

"Heard was then cross-examined by Depp's attorney Camille Vasquez. She refuted claims from Depp's witnesses, including claims that she called paparazzi to photograph her with bruises on her face outside the courtroom when she filed a restraining order in May 2016 and sent TMZ a video of Depp slamming cabinets during an argument."

Heard didn't refute the claim that she sent TMZ the video of Depp slamming cabinets. She claimed she didn't send it, but the evidence strongly indicates that either she OR someone she authorized did. That's not a refutation, that's just a denial. TMZ requires copyright ownership of the stuff they publish, and they got that ownership within 15 minutes of getting the video. Heard was the original owner of that copyright, since she filmed it. That means Heard, either directly or through an authorized agent, transferred copyright to TMZ at pretty much the same time they provided the video itself. If Heard didn't want TMZ to publish and didn't transfer copyright to them, she could have easily had it taken down, but she didn't. But there's no mention of this in the article. Instead, it's presented as if the claim was unsubstantiated, when in fact it wasn't. This is another case of misrepresentation by omission, and another example of how your reliance on the press creates blind spots for you that you don't even know you have.

Sloppy writing. Refute does not necessarily mean "prove false." It can also simply mean "denied:"
Quote:
Usage Note: Traditionally, the verb refute has two meanings. The first is "to prove to be false or erroneous," as in Charges of institutional bias against women were refuted by an analysis of the employment data. In this example, it is clear that an argument was mustered to demonstrate the falsity of the charges. This usage is well established as standard. The second meaning is "to deny the accuracy of," and in this use there is no mention or implication of mustering evidence or detailed reasoning. Rather, the refutation exists as a simple statement or claim. This second use has been criticized as incorrect or inappropriate since the early 1900s, despite being common. A majority of the Usage Panel accepts the use as a synonym of deny, but not by a wide margin.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/refute

An editor should have changed it to something like "denied" or "responded to" claims.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 12:00 PM   #537
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,997
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Personally I have no doubt that both parties lied through their teeth. But if Depp ever slapped or shoved Heard, cursed her, or threatened her even once in all their time together, she should have won.
Once again, you have proven that you don't actually understand the trial, since this is not the relevant legal standard at all. For example, if Heard deliberately and maliciously implied that Depp had sexually abused her (and the Jury decided she did), and he didn't sexually abuse her, then none of what you describe (which isn't sexual abuse) would or should protect her from a defamation claim.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 12:03 PM   #538
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 56,022
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post

ETA >> I do get the 'liberal' obsession with "feelings" though.
Like The right is not equally obssesed with feelings.
Like feelings that it's wrong for anybody who is not a white male to have a voice in society....
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 12:06 PM   #539
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,997
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Sloppy writing. Refute does not necessarily mean "prove false." It can also simply mean "denied:"
Sloppy writing. Which is still an example of how press coverage is garbage. Incompetence rather than malice is often the cause of press coverage being bad, but that doesn't make it not bad.

Quote:
An editor should have changed it to something like "denied" or "responded to" claims.
Yes, they should have. But they didn't. And even if they had made that substitution, we're still left with the impression that it's just she said/she said, with no indication of what the evidence indicates or even what the evidence is.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 12:07 PM   #540
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,997
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Like The right is not equally obssesed with feelings.
Like feelings that it's wrong for anybody who is not a white male to have a voice in society....
We need a term for the "racism" equivalent of Godwinning a thread.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 12:21 PM   #541
IsThisTheLife
Muse
 
IsThisTheLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 773
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Sloppy writing. Which is still an example of how press coverage is garbage. Incompetence rather than malice is often the cause of press coverage being bad, but that doesn't make it not bad...
Of the requirements for a job as corporate media-whore, brains and writing ability/talent are a fair way down the list.

Note the Oscar Wilde quote below.
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 12:35 PM   #542
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,638
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Once again, you have proven that you don't actually understand the trial, since this is not the relevant legal standard at all. For example, if Heard deliberately and maliciously implied that Depp had sexually abused her (and the Jury decided she did), and he didn't sexually abuse her, then none of what you describe (which isn't sexual abuse) would or should protect her from a defamation claim.

Is the headline the basis for this whole affair? In her column she refers to "domestic abuse," not "sexual violence." Would there even have been a suit if the headline had simply picked up her own phrase? Maybe Depp and Heard both have a case against the Post's headline writer.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 12:36 PM   #543
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 5,837
Originally Posted by ZirconBlue View Post
He actually did have a few big movies in the past 5 years (a Pirates movie, Murder on the Orient Express, and the second Fantastic Beasts movie), plus he got a big paycheck for that Fantastic Beasts movie he wasn't even in.
Yeah the movies were big but he wasn't really the draw in any of them and honestly why would any studio want to deal with the baggage now? And I don't mean the trial so much as all the other stories about bad behaviour on set. He is going to be the star of any movies going forward.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 12:44 PM   #544
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,338
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
We need a term for the "racism" equivalent of Godwinning a thread.
I think it's probably just the same term. The general process is the same: Any discussion goes on long enough, someone will cry racist, and after that, the discussion is pretty much worthless. Which is of course the point: To end the debate in your favor with no further discussion. Or at least to derail it by tricking you into defending yourself against spurious accusations rather than addressing substantive points with critical thinking. "Nazi" and "racist" are just two different words for the same thing, in this context: "'Shut up,' he explained."
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 12:47 PM   #545
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,997
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Is the headline the basis for this whole affair?
No, it isn't. It's only part of it. It is one of three statements that Depp was suing for, and Depp won on all three.

Furthermore, Heard didn't have to write the headline for her to be liable for it. Republication counts, and that's what Depp's attorneys argued for, apparently successfully.

Quote:
In her column she refers to "domestic abuse," not "sexual violence." Would there even have been a suit if the headline had simply picked up her own phrase?
There certainly could have been, since the jury found two other statements to be defamatory. Possibly less of a case, but still a case.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 12:53 PM   #546
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 56,022
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Yeah the movies were big but he wasn't really the draw in any of them and honestly why would any studio want to deal with the baggage now? And I don't mean the trial so much as all the other stories about bad behaviour on set. He is going to be the star of any movies going forward.
Pretty much like I said..you don't see him in "above the title" leads much anymore.
I just can't see him becoming the huge star he once was again.For one thing he looks just terrible; Tom Cruise is a year older but looke 1000 time better; Cruise, as the huge opening of Top Gun Maverick shows can still put fannies in the seats;Depp can't.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 12:57 PM   #547
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,338
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Yeah the movies were big but he wasn't really the draw in any of them and honestly why would any studio want to deal with the baggage now? And I don't mean the trial so much as all the other stories about bad behaviour on set. He is going to be the star of any movies going forward.
I'm just bemused at all the people convinced that this trial will kill Depp's career. Especially the variant conviction that it has already killed his career.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. It certainly hasn't yet. Maybe his career is on the rocks for other reasons. But it's not dead yet.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 01:11 PM   #548
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,516
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm just bemused at all the people convinced that this trial will kill Depp's career. Especially the variant conviction that it has already killed his career.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. It certainly hasn't yet. Maybe his career is on the rocks for other reasons. But it's not dead yet.
This is very much true. Depp continues to work. The question is whether or not he will return to the heights of his stardom, which is unlikely unless he makes some serious life changes and pays the appropriate dues.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 01:14 PM   #549
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,638
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, it isn't. It's only part of it. It is one of three statements that Depp was suing for, and Depp won on all three.
.....

The Post's "editor's note" summarizes the verdict pretty succinctly.
Quote:
Editor’s note, June 2, 2022: In 2019, Johnny Depp sued Amber Heard for defamation arising out of this 2018 op-ed. On June 1, 2022, following a trial in Fairfax County, Va. Circuit Court, a jury found Heard liable on three counts for the following statements, which Depp claimed were false and defamatory: (1) “I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.” (2) “Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.” (3) “I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.” The jury separately found that Depp, through his lawyer Adam Waldman, defamed Heard in one of three counts in her countersuit.
The previous allegations of "domestic abuse" were on the public record and resulted in a joint declaration and a financial settlement for Heard. The second statement is a matter of actual fact. The third statement could be seen as her opinion about her experience of the legal process at that time. It's hard to imagine that a suit over the second and third statements alone could go very far. I don't see how she could be responsible for a headline she didn't approve that conflicts with her intent. Maybe her lawyers took entirely the wrong strategy.

Last edited by Bob001; 2nd June 2022 at 01:15 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 01:16 PM   #550
IsThisTheLife
Muse
 
IsThisTheLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 773
I've had LBC (UK national radio station) on while I went about some chores for the past half hour. Natasha Devon (MBE writer, campaigner and broadcaster) is the presenter (7-10PM) and the 'hot topic' is ...

"What message does the verdict in the Depp/Heard case send out to domestic abuse survivors?"

It's a glimpse into a parallel universe where the court found that "Amber was abused by Johnny Depp but she's been ordered not to talk about it" (that's practically verbatim).

Depp's "verbal abuse" of Amber was proved by the emails showed in court which are so "vile and disgusting" that she "can't read them on air", but there they are "in black and white" and astoundingly the jury ignored them.

And then a lot about the horrific online "campaign" which "must have made its way into the jury's minds".

__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 01:21 PM   #551
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,516
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Let's go back to the start of our exchange.



If Depp is the victim and not the abuser, then how can this trial serve as a blueprint for abusers? This claim begs the question that Depp was the abuser and Heard was his victim. But if the actual trial shows that the reverse was the case, then how could it possibly have the effect that you claim? It cannot. Your position about the trial's effects logically requires you to have a position about the events of the trial itself.
First of all, this trial didn't determine who was the abuser and who was the victim. It was a civil proceeding, not a criminal one. No one had been found "guilty" of anything. So right off the bat, your premise is flawed.

That being said, even if this was a perfect exoneration of Depp and an absolute refutation of every abuse claim ever made against him, it's not difficult to see how this exact same method could be used for nefarious purposes by actual abusers.

Again, anti-SLAPP statutes exist for a reason. Not because civil legal proceedings are inherently flawed, but because there is the potential that the process could be exploited and abused. However noble and well-intentioned Depp is in all of this, it doesn't mean someone else can't pervert this same strategy for their own purposes. And it won't be long until we find out.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 01:24 PM   #552
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,997
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The previous allegations of "domestic abuse" were on the public record and resulted in a joint declaration and a financial settlement for Heard.
And? That doesn't mean they were true.

Quote:
The second statement is a matter of actual fact. The third statement could be seen as her opinion about her experience of the legal process at that time. It's hard to imagine that a suit over the second and third statements alone could go very far.
Again, you clearly don't understand the case. Statements may be literally true, but if they create an intended implication which is false, then they can still be defamatory under Virginia law.

Quote:
I don't see how she could be responsible for a headline she didn't approve that conflicts with her intent.
Because she republished it. Again, you clearly don't understand the case.

Quote:
Maybe her lawyers took entirely the wrong strategy.
You finally got something right. Though I suspect they did so under her direction, not at their own discretion.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 01:31 PM   #553
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 27,726
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This is a problem with social media, not with this "thing". I'm only mildly surprised that trying to use social media tools to curate your social media stream hasn't gotten any easier or more effective since the last time I tried, several years ago.

Now I curate my social media stream by not having one. Funnily enough, I still couldn't avoid this.
So then it's not a problem with social media.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 01:37 PM   #554
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,473
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Again, anti-SLAPP statutes exist for a reason. Not because civil legal proceedings are inherently flawed, but because there is the potential that the process could be exploited and abused. However noble and well-intentioned Depp is in all of this, it doesn't mean someone else can't pervert this same strategy for their own purposes. And it won't be long until we find out.
Is it some new discovery that having lots of evidence that the other side has lied repeatedly about their claims, and has in fact done the thing they are accusing you of, is helpful in a defamation case? Why is it a bad thing that this works as a defence? What would an acceptable defence look like?
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 01:40 PM   #555
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,997
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
First of all, this trial didn't determine who was the abuser and who was the victim.
The jury didn't decide that because they weren't asked that, at least not directly. But the evidence shown at trial still demonstrated it.

Quote:
That being said, even if this was a perfect exoneration of Depp and an absolute refutation of every abuse claim ever made against him, it's not difficult to see how this exact same method could be used for nefarious purposes by actual abusers. However noble and well-intentioned Depp is in all of this, it doesn't mean someone else can't pervert this same strategy for their own purposes.
This really doesn't make any sense. If your point is simply that an abuser could sue his victim, that has ALWAYS been the case, and likely always will be so long as citizens have access to the courts to redress wrongs.

Otherwise, Depp's success is largely the result of the fact that he had a strong case, and Heard is a pathological liar who got caught on the stand. Abusers cannot count on having either of those things going for them.

Quote:
You seem to be assuming Manson is actually an abuser. Given that the trial hasn't even started yet, that seems like something to refrain from judgment on, unless you know a lot more about this case than your link provides. But even assuming he is, how is Depp's suit a blueprint for Manson? I don't see how Manson can get his victim to destroy her own credibility by having transparent lies exposed on the stand.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 01:41 PM   #556
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,997
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
So then it's not a problem with exclusive to social media.
FTFY.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 01:58 PM   #557
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,516
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Is it some new discovery that having lots of evidence that the other side has lied repeatedly about their claims, and has in fact done the thing they are accusing you of, is helpful in a defamation case? Why is it a bad thing that this works as a defence? What would an acceptable defence look like?
I never claimed that Depp's defense was unacceptable.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 02:01 PM   #558
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,338
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
That being said, even if this was a perfect exoneration of Depp and an absolute refutation of every abuse claim ever made against him, it's not difficult to see how this exact same method could be used for nefarious purposes by actual abusers.
Even actual abusers are entitled to sue for defamation. Even actual abuse victims are not entitled to make public allegations they cannot prove, even if the allegations happen to be true.

Note that this was a civil trial, about a civil complaint. Heard did not make allegations of criminal acts to a public prosecutor, that were then examined for truth in a criminal court. She tried to gain a conviction for Depp in the court of public opinion, for alleged criminal acts she would never be called upon to actually prove. Unfortunately for her legal strategy, defamation is a concept, and makes her liable in a civil suit, if she tries it.

If Heard gone straight to the police, and filed a criminal complaint while her bruises were fresh, her scratch marks were on Depp's face, and his skin was under her nails, we'd be having a very different conversation right now. And Depp's career would be dead for sure.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 02:04 PM   #559
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,473
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I never claimed that Depp's defense was unacceptable.
Right, so what is the problem? How does having lots of evidence that you are being lied about provide "a blue print for wealthy and powerful abusers to further victimize their accusers"? What is the blue print? Find some lunatic with a personality disorder who physically and verbally assaults you and laughs at the idea of you abusing them, record all that.... and then abuse them and trick them into suing you?
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2022, 02:06 PM   #560
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,338
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I never claimed that Depp's defense was unacceptable.
No, you just implied that it's a bad thing that justice was served, because it opens the door to people bringing lawsuits in bad faith under the guise of serving justice. What's the point of your complaint, then?

Why exactly is it a problem for you that Depp mounted a legitimate defense against the allegations made about him, and his defense prevailed on the merits?

You accept it, but wish he hadn't done it? Wish he hadn't prevailed? Wish he'd prevailed but also somehow not prevailed? Wish the law were somehow written in a way that the innocent good guys always prevail, and the devious bad guys are never allowed to try to subvert the process?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:20 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.