Men’s Rights Redditors think and hope that the verdict in Amber Heard’s defamation trial will end forever her career as an actor. They just hope that whatever she does in the future to make money will be as degrading as possible.
In one thread from yesterday, a bunch of the regulars celebrated rumors (apparently untrue) that she was being cut entirely out of the upcoming Aquaman 2 movie, with her scenes being reshot with … Nicole Kidman (?) in her place.
As a commenter called ijustdontcare74 put it:
I hope this signals the death of her “career”. People need to understand that actions and lies have consequences and that this sort of abuse and playing victim will not be tolerated by the public.
“She needs to be cut from all movies,” NotTheBestLooking wrote.
I believe everything said about her in that trial and I think she should be cancelled with or without a conviction.
One commenter wants her cut not only from Aquaman 2 but from every other movie she’s ever done. thinkb4youspeak explained:
I really liked Aquaman … but I had to uninstall it bcz I just can’t look at royal and lovely Mera played by AH it’s just so wrong to see Mera and feel instant fear and hate an anxiety just bcz of who portrays her. I was also abused and lied about in relationships. …
Anyway I wish they could digitize a different actress over Heards face. In EVERYTHING. I miss watching Drive Angry and the 1st part of Zombieland too. Her face just makes me remember the shit I went through, am going through and I don’t want to feel that way.
Uh, MRA dudes, you all do realize that in an earlier libel trial in the UK it was Johnny, not Amber, who was judged to be the domestic abuser, right?
Meanwhile, in another thread, Men’s Rights Redditors are discussing a report saying that Heard doesn’t have enough money to pay Johnny Depp what he won in court.
“Good,” wrote poobobo. “She gets what she deserved.”
Luckily for her, the Men’s Rights commenters have some ideas on how she can get enough money to pay Depp. One would be to snag herself another billionaire “simp.” (She reportedly dated Elon Musk for a brief time, and he paid off one of her debts.) But the Men’s Rightsers think she’s too plain and too “old” to attract a really rich man. After all, she’s 36, clearly an ancient crone.
Others think she’s still good looking enough to make money as a sex worker — and they take a certain pleasure in imagining that this new career would be as degrading as possible.
“How long until she starts an onlyfans?” asked Any_Bid_4193.
“For $200 you can watch her shit in her bed,” quipped McFeely_Smackup, referring to Depp’s dubious claim that Heard once shat on his side of their bed.
“Hey, Amber, $10 to fuck your tits!” sneered FactsArentHate.
“Hahahahaha,” wrote ninodelumbre.
Maybe she should get into porn to pay off her debts. Or maybe get with one of those rich Arab dudes that like to shit in the mouth of prostitutes, I think they call them dubi porta-potty. I heard they give up to $10,000 for each dump.
Men’s Rights Activists, truly noble humanists, huh?
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
In fairness it was Starling Jenkins who found that and said Amber Heard admitted it was her; not Depp. And AH’s team didn’t challenge that.
That obviously doesn’t detract from the thrust of your post. But there’s just so much misinformation about the trial I think it’s important to make sure the basic facts are correct.
@thinkb4youspeak:
You’re being a dick three times over here: one, misogyny; two, siding with a domestic abuser; and three, implying a major spoiler about a film I haven’t seen.
So you hate her — but would enjoy having sex with her. That says a lot about how much you respect women, not to mention how much you respect the act of sex. It also says a lot about how much you respect yourself.
Sometimes Facts Are Hate.
” just so wrong to see Mera and feel instant fear and hate an anxiety just bcz of who portrays her. I was also abused and lied about in relationships. …”
It DOES suck seeing an abusive ex. I DO hate the fear an anxiety I feel from it. Not only that, but I feel fear and anxiety when I’m surrounded by males that I don’t know. It’s been this was since I was 13 years old and I I’ve lived with it, been harassed bc of it, and made to feel like I’m “crazy”. You’d think at least one of these dudes would think “oh, crap, this is how abuse has affected so many women… But no. It’s only about them and always will be.
Starling Jenkins, like most of Depp’s witnesses, was then and is still currently under Depp’s employ. Also this claim was certainly addressed, during Heard’s testimony, where she categorically denied it.
“First of all, I don’t think that’s funny. I don’t know what grown woman does. I was not also in a pranking mood; my life was falling apart. I was at a crossroads in my life. I was really serious,” Heard continued. “And I had just been attacked on my 30th birthday by my violent husband with whom I was desperately in love and knew I needed to leave. It was not really a jovial time, and I don’t think that’s funny. Period. That’s disgusting.”
In fact, the only person on record thinking such a thing WOULD be a hilarious prank was Depp himself. This was brought up and entered into evidence during the UK trial. Depp texted his assistant and said “Will you squat in front of the door and leave a giant coil of dookie so that Amber steps in it and thinks that one of the dogs, primarily Boo, had a major problem… it’ll be funny!”
Jenkins statement about Heard is hearsay- there is no written proof or anything other than his testimony to prove that conversation happened. On the flip, Depp’s texts about what a hilarious prank leaving coils of human poo around is were from his own mouth, in text, and undeniably factual. The claim that Heard pooped in the bed *is* absolutely dubious, as David said. Basic facts of the case is right.
@the lilithian
The rule though is that if you wish to suggest something is untrue or incorrect, you must put that to the relevant witness. So by not doing so HA’s team were accepting it was true, regardless of what their client may have said.
Now whether AH’s team were competent is of course something that’s being discussed a lot on legal twitter and other places.
But on a technical point, ‘statements against interest’ are an exception to the hearsay rule.
The rationale for that is, exculpatory hearsay is inadmissible as people have a vested interest in making themselves look good. But if they say something incriminating then that’s more likely to be true; otherwise why say it?
That’s why the testimony was allowed; even by a judge who took a very robust approach to the admissibility of hearsay.
So whether it is actually true or not is irrelevant. AH’s legal team accepted it was for the purposes of the trial.
I do appreciate though that people can have different views as the whether the court’s decision was wrong or right. Ironically I’m one of the few English lawyers defending the UK judgement. I think it was a decision the judge was entitled to make on the evidence available at that trial. But similarly I also respect the decision of the jury. That was also a series of verdicts open to the jury on the evidence at that trial.
Anyone who thinks she might be guilty should watch this video going over all the info that was released (rather than the limited info from the second trial). When you see it all he is so obviously an abuser who bullied and bribed others to cover up for him
https://youtu.be/_PD9zhprgFM
I think the Depp v Heard commentary reflects that growing trend of polarisation generally; but also the increase in vitriol and hate.
I appreciate that’s probably amplified by the nature of social media. It’s designed to promote animosity and conflict.
But it seems that the position now is that no-one will accept someone with an opposing view could actually believe that in good faith. So your opponent by definition has to not only be lying, but also stupid and evil.
A consequence of that is the people not only disagree with outcomes; they now actively refuse to abide by them.
Of course there’s always been protest about decisions people don’t agree with. But now we’re going beyond that.
Disagreeing with the result(s) of the DvH trial(s) of course probably just results in spats on Twitter. It’s when people, for a topical example, don’t accept court rulings about the outcome of elections that it causes problems. But if people do genuinely believe those courts got it wrong, then we see the risks of them refusing to accept that and trying to force what they see should be the correct outcome.
I think we’ll see more of that in coming years. I’m not sure that’s a good thing.
This will be going behind a paywall shortly; but we do discuss some of the issues of the two trials and the ‘court of public opinion’ vs legal determinations aspect. It’s more about the technical aspects than the underlying merits; but in case anyone might find it useful.
Why would someone put something up on Youtube with the full intention of yanking it down again after a short time and moving it to a pay site? That’s unfair and hostile to anyone who would be interested but happens to arrive “late”. They should just leave it up on Youtube and monetize it there with ads. It also means it can’t be referenced elsewhere without that reference succumbing to link rot in a very short time, and such.
Full, uncircumventable paywalling should be reserved for for-profit entertainment like Hollywood blockbusters.
Always interesting to see how twisted their insecure and controlling minds are. To them, there is nothing but dominance and humiliation especially in sex, so anyone they claim to despise they also want to dominate with sex. It speaks volumes on the type of person they are.
Sex work is “empowering” when a woman who submits to you does it, but it’s right back to being shameful when a woman you don’t like does it. Sex workers rights should include women not having to do it when they have no other choice.
So, one of the (male) jurors in the trial was interviewed, and guess what? The decision wasn’t about which side had the best/hardest evidence, it was about who looked more believable and acted more like a “true” victim. How strange!
Trials by jury are crap, and I’m glad that my country doesn’t implement them.
Not strictly relevant to the current discussion, but we’ve been chatting a lot about the cases on legal twitter and someone posted me this. It made sense in context.
Actually it didn’t; but everything is better with Carpinchos.
@Lorna
The most telling and eye-opening thing for me there is the discussion of the audio clip. I hadn’t actually heard that clip before, and it’s shocking how brazenly it was misinterpreted. You can’t seriously tell me that anybody would misinterpret the clip that way, unless it was willful. This puts all that stuff about feminists not believing that men can be abused in a whole new sinister light.
Even then, the biggest thing for me is having to put up with reminders of this fucking trial almost every single day over and over whenever I go on corporate social media like Facebook and Twitter, and literally every day since the verdict. And it’s just wall-to-wall disgusting ableist/sanist nonsense. You can’t tell me that this is simply a matter of polarization. It’s too similar to GamerGate. People wonder why disabled people are treated like such shit in today’s society, and stuff like this is exactly why.
@ surplus
Most of the videos on Dan’s site are free to watch, permanently.
However he is a content creator, that costs both time and money.
For some reason the livestreams we’ve been doing seem quite popular. 130,000 people watched that one. So that does present an opportunity to recoup something for his time and effort. Nobody is under any obligation to pay. They only have to do so if the videos are of value to them. But there was still an opportunity to view them for free for a time.
May I ask, would it make a difference to your thinking had it been behind a paywall from the start? I’m genuinely curious about that. It’s weird how humans assess value. I have a thing that if I’ve ever bought something at a discount price I find I can never again pay full price for it. I sort of feel ripped off.
If anyone has any insight into the psychology of that, I’d love to hear their thoughts.
There is also the wider issue of monetising things like this generally. The mainstream press have commented, quite negatively, on how much legal commentators have made discussing the trial. Although I do note the irony that all the articles on that are behind paywalls themselves. And I observe that the mainstream journalists will not reveal how much they get paid for commenting on the trial. So I think there’s some hypocrisy there.
I am very cogniscent though that, wherever people think the truth may lie, the trial involved real people having their most intimate behaviour and vulnerabilities forensically dissected in full public view. That’s horrible for all concerned.
The trial however has presented a useful opportunity to explain the legal principles involved, and illustrate both competent, and perhaps less than competent, advocacy and trial strategy. So there is a genuine educational opportunity there. And people seem to welcome that, and are very willing to pay. People were literally just clicking to donate money, even during the free streaming. I must confess I found that bewildering.
I should point out that I don’t make any money from my commentary. Although in the interests of full disclosure I am picking up new defamation instructions on the back of the videos.
But as people here know, I just like talking about things like this anyway; and I have been commenting on a lot of totally free (or at least where payment is non-obligatory) platforms. So the information can still be obtained, at no cost to you, elsewhere.
@Reaktor, No, the juror actually said that the verdict was based on the evidence presented at trial. Her body language on the stand was only just one example of something that they commented on. Here’s the full article about what he explained about how they came to their verdict:
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Culture/juror-johnny-depp-amber-heard-defamation-trial-speaks/story?id=85432281
Still seems to me that ads + donate button would be a better monetization strategy. There’s also the link-rot issue and its close relatives. Moving things behind paywalls breaks links in ways that paywalled-all-along doesn’t do.
Meanwhile, I see that Jono remains very insistent that his(?) be the last word on the subject of Amber Heard …
See?
Link rot.
@ surplus
I gather the issue with the Coronation Street videos is one of those ‘not available in your country’ things. So I guess that’s a licensing/copyright thing.
However the video we did has been kept open for a bit; so you do have the opportunity to watch it if you’re quick.
And I get what you’re saying about linking; but a link would still bring up the video. You’d just have to pay.
I think ultimately though it’s down to content creators to choose how they want to monetise. It’s not like videos are an essential service. So people can set their own conditions as to what they want in exchange for their labour. Then people are free to choose if that’s an offer they want to accept.
@Alan Robertshaw:
a) Deleting the video from Youtube and uploading it to a paywalled site will break links to the original Youtube copy. Leaving a forwarding link alleviates that somewhat (if Youtube will let you rather than just replacing the video’s page with a generic 404 page) but then people who later follow the Youtube link and, instead of a video they can just click to watch immediately, find a referral to another site that then asks them for money, will rightly view this as a bait-and-switch;
b) Links to the copy at the paywalled site would not “still bring up the video” for the vast majority of humanity. The ones for whom it would being the intersection of three groups: 1) people who have an American credit card, or interoperable western-country credit card; 2) people who have enough discretionary income to be able to afford to pay for access there (likely over a full day’s wages for at least two billion people, or a quarter of the population); and 3) people who are willing to pay that much to hear about … a bunch of legal esoterica, rather than the latest exploits of Iron Man or Wonder Woman or Captain Kirk or similarly.
So, a very large majority of the human race will be forcibly excluded due to the profit motive, whereas ads + donation button would not exclude anyone (and from the sounds of it the donation button had been bringing in plenty anyway).
An earlier point stands on top of all of this, which is that discriminating against people on the basis that they “got there too late” is not fair. The analogy to discounts at the supermarket does not hold water, since such discounts recur but you’ve indicated no plans to occasionally reinstate the free copy at Youtube temporarily now and again.
Fact is, if anything what’s been proposed here is a bigger dick move than the current and deplorable trend of television shows airing only their first two seasons on normal TV and then moving to online-only paywalled platforms. Even if seasons 3 and onward are thus restricted to the shrinking middle-class-and-above (as you not only need to pay the streaming site, you need to do it with credit, and you need enough bandwidth to stream decent-quality video, for which you need to be in the kind of urban or suburban area where the minimum monthly payment for shelter is north of $2000, otherwise it’s single-digit-mbps for you on anything other than mobile, and mobile is metered so streaming several gigs of video per episode that way will also set you back four figures monthly), at least the first two seasons remain available for free for as long as the network continues to loop through the reruns.
@Surplus of Requirements, I wasn’t even responding to you. I was correcting information that someone else posted. What’s your problem? Can’t handle facts?
Where did I ever claim to have a problem? I just made an observation about your publicly-visible behavior (behavior that, I might add, is ongoing and continues to conform to that observation). Why do you seem to have a problem with my having made that observation?
@Surplus to Requirements,
You didn’t claim it. I’m simply making my own observation that it seems to bother you when people disagree with you about Depp v Heard trial, not accepting that they may be doing so in good faith.
@ surplus
I do take your points; especially about TV shows. Although I don’t have a TV myself, that does seem to be almost the smack dealer model.
But as to the YouTube thing, as mentioned, would you still have the same issue had the video been paywalled from the start? I am very curious about the psychology of this.
But if you do want to catch the videos whilst they are still free, then you can click the notification button. That would alert you to when a livestream was about to start. And even if you couldn’t watch live (although it would be nice if you could; I would be interested in any comments you had) you would at least know a new video was going up and would have at least a day to view it.
Yeah, must confess I was a bit surprised to find out just how many people were interested in the costs regime for third party disclosure orders. We’re up to 170K now!
But I like that people are interested in the actual legal issues of the various cases, and the practicalities of litigation, rather than just the reality TV aspects and vitriol from the various ‘teams’. That does seem to be appreciated by people as our USP.
And just for you, here’s an open and free link to the latest.