So Johnny Depp won…

@SW-User Easy.

It sets back #metoo because it shows how easily a game victim can still be blamed and isolated, how easily what happened to her can be taken as a failure of her personal character, rather than as part of a social pattern.

Not all women are alike, but feminism was supposed to let us see how we are all similarly vulnerable – both to gendered abuse and to the gendered application of double standards and unjust blame. No victim is perfect. No victim should have to be. After all, if a man cannot be considered abusive towards an imperfect woman, then just how perfect does a woman need to be before it becomes wrong to beat her

@SW-User if he was a victim he wouldn't have had a guilty conscience and said it was about him when his name wasn't even mentioned in it. That says he is a liar like all narcissists and the abuser,

@thedreamer1975 Again. He was clearly identifiable. He won the defamation case on that fact.

@SW-User do me a favour and listen to this.

The imperfect victim trope is actually better fitted to Johnny
[media=https://youtu.be/Lc4hf4w7QXA]

@SW-User this case was never about who abused who (and there was for sure abuse on both sides). It was whether Amber Heard defamed Depp. She didn’t. She did not mention his name. Therefore she should have won the case. But because it was a trial by jury, Depp’s lawyers successfully harnessed social media to paint her as a narcissistic borderline psychopathic nutjob. The trial then descended into a trial by TikTok and the jury were successfully swayed into essentially ignoring the fact that she didn’t defame him in order to punish the woman.
After all, the jury may have been forbidden from reading about the case, but they were not sequestered, and they were allowed to keep their phones…

@SW-User I watched the entire trial. There is no evidence of JD hitting her so you're creating a completely false 'false-equivalency' argument

I hope you never get falsely accused of a heinous crime

Re the defamation, I guess you know the law better than the judge, the lawyers and the jury who deliberated

The legal threshold for defamation is not naming someone - it is whether or not they are rrasonably identifiable

Now take your stubborn silliness elsewhere

@SW-User then what is the legal threshold for defamation, cos it sure as hell hadn’t been breached in this trial.

Also, again, this trial was NOT about who abused who.

@SW-User I just told you. You can look up the jury instructions yourself. I did.