Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did JD jointly sue wapo and AH? If not, did he ever sue wapo?

I think he can’t because it’s supposed to be an opinion piece by Heard. WaPo didn’t present it as factual-they just published her essay

Who wrote the headline? The aclu? He should have triple sued all three of them and let them fight it out amongst each other.

For the third time on just this page, WaPo editors wrote the headline.

Then he should have jointly sued them

He couldn’t, because he would have to prove that WaPo published the headline with knowledge of its falsity and intent to harm Depp. They simply had no evidence of that, it probably would have been dismissed on First Amendment/anti-SLAPP grounds, and bringing in WaPo would have made his case appear more frivolous.

Then why is the headline so important?

“Sexual violence” is more specific than “domestic violence” or “abuse,” which could be proven through non-sexual physical violence, emotional abuse or financial abuse, and therefore would be the hardest one for Heard to prove was true. But since Heard didn’t write the headline, they have to prove that she defamed him by retweeting the article when it contained the headline.

How did wapo come up with sexual violence headline?

I believe it came from Depp’s UK litigation against The Sun (to which Heard was not a party).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did JD jointly sue wapo and AH? If not, did he ever sue wapo?

I think he can’t because it’s supposed to be an opinion piece by Heard. WaPo didn’t present it as factual-they just published her essay

Who wrote the headline? The aclu? He should have triple sued all three of them and let them fight it out amongst each other.

For the third time on just this page, WaPo editors wrote the headline.

Did WaPo come out and admit its editor wrote the headline? If it's coming from Heard's team, I won't believe it because she has had many inconsistencies in her stories. Regardless who wrote the title, she obviously allowed it under her name and retweeted the article with the title. She could have also ask for the title to be changed if she didn't agree with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did JD jointly sue wapo and AH? If not, did he ever sue wapo?

I think he can’t because it’s supposed to be an opinion piece by Heard. WaPo didn’t present it as factual-they just published her essay

Who wrote the headline? The aclu? He should have triple sued all three of them and let them fight it out amongst each other.

For the third time on just this page, WaPo editors wrote the headline.

Did WaPo come out and admit its editor wrote the headline? If it's coming from Heard's team, I won't believe it because she has had many inconsistencies in her stories. Regardless who wrote the title, she obviously allowed it under her name and retweeted the article with the title. She could have also ask for the title to be changed if she didn't agree with it.

Even Depp’s legal team does not dispute that WaPo wrote the headline. That’s why they’re having to pursue the republication by tweet theory. You are grasping at straws.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, she can’t disavow the headline. That’s another mind trick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, she can’t disavow the headline. That’s another mind trick.

If you are going to willfully deny even the very allegations of Depp’s complaint, there is no reasoning with you. I’m not going to argue with delusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, she can’t disavow the headline. That’s another mind trick.

If you are going to willfully deny even the very allegations of Depp’s complaint, there is no reasoning with you. I’m not going to argue with delusion.

I meant, AH cannot deny that she’s responsible for the headline. She’s responsible for the entire publication.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, she can’t disavow the headline. That’s another mind trick.

If you are going to willfully deny even the very allegations of Depp’s complaint, there is no reasoning with you. I’m not going to argue with delusion.

I meant, AH cannot deny that she’s responsible for the headline. She’s responsible for the entire publication.

Except legally, she’s not. You have zero clue what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, she can’t disavow the headline. That’s another mind trick.

If you are going to willfully deny even the very allegations of Depp’s complaint, there is no reasoning with you. I’m not going to argue with delusion.

I meant, AH cannot deny that she’s responsible for the headline. She’s responsible for the entire publication.

Except legally, she’s not. You have zero clue what you are talking about.

The standard of republication is twofold. First that you published it in a way that reached a new audience. Amber heard tweeting that headline reached a different audience than those who read an online Washington Post opinion piece. The second standard is that you wrote it. Amber claimed the article as hers. Again, this is not a slam dunk case, but that is the claim Johnny has the most chance of winning.

[Anonymous]

If ah is found responsible for the entire publication, and she argues that she’s not responsible for the headline, her recourse is against wapo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, she can’t disavow the headline. That’s another mind trick.

If you are going to willfully deny even the very allegations of Depp’s complaint, there is no reasoning with you. I’m not going to argue with delusion.

I meant, AH cannot deny that she’s responsible for the headline. She’s responsible for the entire publication.

Except legally, she’s not. You have zero clue what you are talking about.

The standard of republication is twofold. First that you published it in a way that reached a new audience. Amber heard tweeting that headline reached a different audience than those who read an online Washington Post opinion piece. The second standard is that you wrote it. Amber claimed the article as hers. Again, this is not a slam dunk case, but that is the claim Johnny has the most chance of winning.

*sigh*

This is incorrect, thanks to the Communications Decency Act. On the internet, merely tweeting or otherwise sharing a link to content in the same platform does not constitute republication. In this case, the jury would have to find that Heard added content to the tweet beyond what was in the article with the intention of reaching a new audience, beyond the audience of the original tweet by WaPo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If ah is found responsible for the entire publication, and she argues that she’s not responsible for the headline, her recourse is against wapo.

That’s not how the jury instructions work. There are three separate, allegedly defamatory statements, and the jury has to make findings with respect to each specific statement:m. There is no “responsible for the entire publication” element here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If ah is found responsible for the entire publication, and she argues that she’s not responsible for the headline, her recourse is against wapo.

That’s not how the jury instructions work. There are three separate, allegedly defamatory statements, and the jury has to make findings with respect to each specific statement:m. There is no “responsible for the entire publication” element here.

Then why are we taking about the headline? And what I meant was, if the jury finds for him, she can sue wapo based on the false headline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If ah is found responsible for the entire publication, and she argues that she’s not responsible for the headline, her recourse is against wapo.

That’s not how the jury instructions work. There are three separate, allegedly defamatory statements, and the jury has to make findings with respect to each specific statement:m. There is no “responsible for the entire publication” element here.

Then why are we taking about the headline? And what I meant was, if the jury finds for him, she can sue wapo based on the false headline.

Heard can’t be held liable for retweeting the article with the headline unless they find she added additional content in her retweet. Therefore, if she were found liable based on that statement, it would be because of her own separate acts to which WaPo was not a party and this WaPo would not be liable to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If ah is found responsible for the entire publication, and she argues that she’s not responsible for the headline, her recourse is against wapo.

That’s not how the jury instructions work. There are three separate, allegedly defamatory statements, and the jury has to make findings with respect to each specific statement:m. There is no “responsible for the entire publication” element here.

Then why are we taking about the headline? And what I meant was, if the jury finds for him, she can sue wapo based on the false headline.

Because one of the statements that Johnny is claiming is defamatory is the title of the online op-Ed. The tweet from Amber has to meet a standard of republication. It seems to meet the standard that she desired to reach a new audience, and the jury will have to decide If the sentence she tweeted along with it constitutes republication. Otherwise Johnny would have to sue the Washington Post. Since he doesn’t actually care about damages and is using this trial to televise the story to the world, I don’t believe he’s interested in seeing anyone else.

Johnny’s case is not especially strong. But it is quite clear he has generated a lot of support in the court of public opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone remember Sasha Mitchell and the false allegations from his wife that derailed his career?? I do.

AH did not derail JD’s career - he did that himself. Disney already testified to that.

He did not need to bring this case but coukd have written a counter op Ed with his version of reality. In stead he has dragged himself and AH through the mud in public bringing further pain to himself and families on both sides.

JD has consumed so much drugs and alcohol that it is not possible for him to remember how he behaved when under the influence. He was twice her age when they started dating and yet takes zero responsibility for the toxic relationship.

The level of misogyny on the internet in vilifying AH and casting her as the only reprehensible party makes me afraid for my teenage daughter. For example, the poop in bed episode was misrepresented to be her depraved way of communicating displeasure when it was her incontinent dog.

They are both talented but damaged individuals who hurt each other. I hope they both lose their cases and that both move on with more dignity and respect.