Over the course of Amber Heard/Johnny Depp defamation trial, Heard faced what one social media research firm has called “one of the worst cases of cyberbullying and cyberstalking by a group of Twitter accounts that we’ve ever seen” — and the bullying continues even today, nearly two months after Heard lost the case.
Inspired by Depp’s win, and looking around for a new woman to harass, many of Heard’s biggest haters have settled on actress Evan Rachel Wood, who faces her own defamation lawsuit from ex-boyfriend Marilyn Manson, after she accused the has-been shock rocker of rape and other abuse. Her new haters are hoping to turn her into what they chillingly call “Amber Heard 2.0.” (I wrote about this here; see also here, here, and here.)
The campaign is already well under way, with the haters assembled and ready to go. Indeed, one 40 minute YouTube video with the title “An Amber Heard Sequel? The Hoax Against Marilyn Manson is Amber Heard Vs Johnny Depp On Steroids!” has gotten more than 90 thousand views and inspired more than 1500 comments.
Understandably, Evan Rachel Wood doesn’t want to be the next Amber Heard, a focus of mirth and fury for an indefatigable army of some of the worst people the internet has to offer. But some of the comments she made earlier this week distancing herself from Heard aren’t going to help her, or Heard, or anyone else but her haters.
On Wednesday, Wood linked to the report om the bullying campaign mentioned above; Newsweek took this to mean that Wood “seemingly supports Amber Heard following trial verdict,” as the headline to their story on the subject put it. Wood was having none of it, declaring in an Instagram post Thursday that Newsweek’s coverage was a clear and present danger to her well-being. “If you are worried about my feed being flooded with hate,” she wrote,
then I would steer clear of headlines that put me in danger, such as these, which are not based on facts.”
She followed up with a comment on the once seemingly innocuous photo of her and Heard, now considered proof that the two are in league with one another.
While the logic makes sense — being in a photo with someone doesn’t mean that the two of you are friends or colleagues or much less that you’re guilty of the same crimes.
But the implicit comparison of Heard (abuse victim, according to the UK courts at least) and Weinstein (rapist) rubbed a lot of her — and Heard’s — supporters the wrong way.
Some were more forgiving:
Others weren’t in a forgiving mood:
I’m certainly disappointed with Wood; I think this was an unforced error on her part. But I will keep supporting her. And Heard. Imperfect victims are still victims. One commenter put it well:
Bleak indeed. This case is going to be an utter mess.
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.
This is exactly what the misogynists want – atomization of victims, people feeling like they’re alone against the world. Divide and conquer, as usual. I hate it and I hate how effective it is.
I’m sorry David; but I think there may be a bit of Betteridge’s Law there.
Whilst I don’t question Heard is getting a lot of unwarranted abuse; there are some issues with that report.
This is Bot Sentinel. That’s a firm run by a chap called Christopher Bouzy. Chris was hired by David Shane; head of Amber Heard’s PR team.
So whilst that doesn’t necessarily negate the report, I do feel it should be mentioned it’s a paid for piece commissioned as part of Heard’s media campaign; rather than neutral journalism.
Although having said that, I do think some of the criticisms of the report are valid. Any reporting of the trial that does not suggest the decision is wrong seems to be regarded as abusive.
Whilst there is a defamation element, the case is actually a claim in conspiracy against two people; and consists of a number of elements.
Here’s the full particulars:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LloIWMJrefKSGZ_pfErcaOggmVIYckrd/view
Obviously this will have to be tested in court; but it’s not quite as simple an issue as some media commentary suggests.
I would have to disagree. Heard is now considered by many people as someone who makes false accusations. As you rightly say, people should not necessarily be judged by the company they keep. But look at how a lot of people read things into Depp’s association with Warner. It is perhaps understandable why Wood would not want to be seen to have any connection with Heard; from a court of public opinion perspective if not a legal one.
I can understand that. But we keep coming back to the point that, whether people agree with it or not, there’s a lot of people out there who saw the trial and think the jury got it right. That includes a lot of feminists and DV advocates and survivors.
It is therefore entirely conceivable that Wood is being totally honest in her opinion that she thinks Heard is in the wrong and that is the reason she wishes to dissociate herself from her.
Like I say, I fully acknowledge there is a lot of unwarranted abuse of Heard, and Wood. But there seems to be a reluctance in some circles to accept that people may honestly believe the jury got it right; and hold that opinion in good faith.
As I often mention, it’s a bit of a bugbear of mine that media reports of legal proceedings are almost invariably inaccurate; and the recent high profile cases have thrown up a lot of examples of that. So, whilst people are of course entitled to their own opinions as to the matters, they are not entitled to their own facts.
If people are interested in these cases, I would encourage people to not accept any comments about the case, including mine, at face value; and do a bit of fact checking for themselves.
@Alan Robertshaw
I’m confused by your paragraph that begins with this sentence. Your explanation of why Wood may have done what she did definitely makes sense. However, David’s assertion was that Wood’s statements will not help her–not that they aren’t understandable or logical. Sorry, perhaps I’m just missing something.
@Prophet309, Well, let’s for a moment ignore the disagreements over whether the jury in the US got it right or wrong with regards to the verdict in the Depp v Heard trial. The way I understood Alan’s comment is that because a lot of people in the general public think that the jury “got it right”, even if you disagree, means that Evan would be associating herself with someone who is seen to be a “false accuser” by those people if she openly supports Amber Heard, thus making herself a target. That’s why she doesn’t want to be seen to openly supporting her.
Yes, it might not dissuade those misogynists who are looking for another target but that group would probably a lot smaller than the group who agrees with the verdict in the Depp v Heard case.
Oh FFS are we really going to have this argument again? Really?
@ prophet309
Yes; that’s where I differ from David’s assessment. I believe this action will help Wood. Both in the public sphere; and also legally.
Because of the nature of the Warner case; it would be dangerous to be associated with someone found to have made false allegations. If this goes to trial it could expose Wood to some potentially damaging questions.
Also, there’s a lot of preliminary skirmishing currently happening in the Warner case*. That’s all judge only at this stage (no jury). And whilst judges can filter out irrelevant material, the association could really hurt Wood.
Heard was found to have made false accusations within the legal proceedings themselves and to the court (the juror 15 issue). As a major issue in the Warner case is that the Defendants conspired to manipulate the legal process itself through false allegations in legal proceedings; it would be an open goal to be associated with someone who has demonstrably done that.
(* Wood is trying to get elements of the claim struck out. Without getting too technical, that’s more likely to be successful if there are no factual issues to be resolved. But if Warner’s lawyers bring up the Heard association there’s more of a chance the judge says there’s now a factual dispute; and issues of fact are solely a matter for the jury. So it would be left to the trial to resolve.)
Hope that makes some sense!
Why would that matter, Jono? Are you suggesting that, if Wood hadn’t made these measures, she would get even more vicious harassment from “the group who agrees with the verdict in the Depp v Heard case”? How strange! How peculiar!
@An Impish Pepper, Yes, I’m saying that because I think that it’s possible that she may get backlash from more people who believe that Heard may be an abuser, not just the usual groups who harass women on the internet. Notice, I’m not saying it’s right or that I agree with it, just that there could be a backlash there. I’m not sure what’s strange or peculiar about that. In addition to that, I’m not sure if she really believes her either.
Also, I forgot to mention. Evan distancing herself from Amber Heard is also about perception, not only about harassment. It could also affect her own defamation case if she associates herself with someone who already lost to defamation.
@An Impish Pepper:
Interesting if so, especially in light of the fact that that group appears to include Jono …
OT, but does anyone know of a superior alternative to FBP for Facebook ad blocking? FBP has been really unreliable the last couple of weeks and I don’t make much use of its other functionality.
Do you believe that “backlash” is the same as harassment then?
You realize that this blog post, and all the others David has made on the topic, are about the harassment, right?
@An Impish Pepper, Yes, I’m aware that was talking about the harassment in all these blogposts. What’s your point?
I was talking about whether Evan Rachel Wood distancing herself from Amber Heard would placate some of the harassment. She likely believed that Newsweek insinuating that she supported her would make it worse, hence why she responded the way the that she did.
@Jono
I could be wrong, but I believe the point is the following:
You laid out two groups: “misogynists … looking for another target” and “the group who agrees with the verdict in the Depp v Heard case.” You then discussed how Wood distancing herself from Heard might reduce harassment from the latter group.
People in the latter group being willing to harass Wood at all means they’re not exactly lacking in misogyny. I believe Impish Pepper’s point is the words you used demonstrate you’re somewhat aware of this, just not at the level where you’re actively thinking about it.
@Alan Robertshaw
Yes, I think I get it now–the part at the end in the parenthesis really helped.
While I think it would’ve been possible for Wood to both distance herself and not imply any sort of opinion on Heard’s case, expecting perfection is unreasonable. And it can also feed into victim-blaming.
It’s just so depressing… As Cyborgette said, the misogynists seem to keep winning, and there’s just so *many* of them.
@Prophet309, Okay, I didn’t mean to suggest that there are no misogynists in the latter group. By the former group, I was more referring to, for example, MRAs who trying to use the Depp v Heard case to their advantage.
I should also point out that people on both sides of that case been involved in harassment, both Heard and Depp supporters. I don’t think any of it is okay though.
@Surplus of Requirements, No, actually I don’t support harassment of anyone. It’s not that black and white.
@Jono:
I didn’t say anything of the sort; merely that you appear to be a member of “the group who agrees with the verdict in the Depp v Heard case”. You then made the inferential leap from that to supporting harassment … people will now make of that observational datum what they will.
@Surplus of Requirements, Okay, my mistake. My assumption was based on the context that I was talking about harassment from both groups. I was also trying to clarify it because other people also apparently read things into the my comment which I didn’t directly say either. See An Impish Pepper’s reply and Prophet309’s explanation for why I thought that.
Speaking of defamation cases, anyone remember this one?
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/former-covington-catholic-student-nick-sandmann-loses-defamation-lawsuits-against-cbs-abc-nyt-and-others/
Well anyway, he lost all his claims today.
In further defamation news, we’ve just had the first day of the Alex Jones hearing.
This arises from his comments about Sandy Hook being a hoax. His defence to the claim was struck out for non-operation with court directions. So this hearing is just to work out the amount of damages to be awarded. A jury decides that.
The Plaintiff’s advocate did a really good opening. The judge seems pretty no nonsense. AJ’s lawyer tried to object to something. “Your Honour, may I just…”. “No.”
@Alan Smug rich White boy MAGAt gets comeuppance for intimidating elderly Native American attempting to get to one of the major public monuments.
GOOD.
LOL at the AJ judge. Sadly, AJ will appeal this to the Supreme MAGA Court, who love guns and don’t mind innocent people dying. And he’ll use it for more fundraising grift.
Sigh. I’ll be over here coloring like the guy in the later story. But without his style.
@ gss ex-noob
Yeah. My theory as to his strategy is he’s going more for court of public opinion.
Get struck out for non compliance with court directions, but then push the narrative that the judge suppressed all his evidence and didn’t allow him to defend himself. All part of the deep state silencing truth tellers and removing the first amendment.
There’s already a lot of people going down that rabbit hole online. It’s whether it’s worth trying to correct the misinformation. Your average InfoWars viewer can’t be reasoned out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into; and the non fans will know AJ is all BS. But maybe there’s a middle group that will be open to fact checking?
The hearing is proving a fascinating insight into how these ‘news’ organisations operate though. They have discovery of all IW’s internal documents, and can question the producers. So it’s stuff like, do they actually believe what they’re putting out? (No; they acknowledge it’s just clickbait for revenue)
I always like to stress that lawyers are not their clients; but something of his punter seems to have rubbed off on Alex Jones’ attorney…
Please ye we may contrive this afternoon,
And quaff carouses to our mistress’ health;
And do as adversaries do in law,
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
A recent study suggest the answer to that question is, no there isn’t.
See God you are a f***ing obsfucating **** [2022]
Robertshaw et al
Subjects: n = 1
Yeah, I mean it was a shitty thing for her to post, but has anyone never said or done something shitty under extreme stress?