Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage

From our contributors:

Display Order:

Tara Reade defects to Russia.
Weird by Curt_Anderson     May 30, 2023 3:34 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (8 comments) [104 views]


Unsolicited commentary on Bud Light
Recreation by HatetheSwamp     May 31, 2023 3:05 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [3 views]


Democrats, Republicans Reached A Tentative Debt Ceiling Agreement
Government by HatetheSwamp     May 27, 2023 6:07 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (14 comments) [213 views]


Brutal: Ted Cruz Educates AOC
Education by oldedude     May 29, 2023 9:42 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (6 comments) [136 views]


McCarthy threatens Wray with contempt
Politics by oldedude     May 30, 2023 9:25 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (9 comments) [87 views]


Kari Lake is either ignorant or judges that the supporters she bilks are ignorant.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     May 30, 2023 4:53 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [39 views]


Transgender high school athletes no-show state track championships following backlash
Gay & Lesbian by HatetheSwamp     May 27, 2023 4:42 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (28 comments) [259 views]


The debt ceiling compromise
Government by HatetheSwamp     May 30, 2023 4:22 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (9 comments) [58 views]


A Fair And Inclusive Solution For Transgender Women In Sports
Sports by islander     April 28, 2023 5:52 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: islander (51 comments) [643 views]


Outrage grows as Kohl's stores offer LGBTQ clothing for babies as the outlet is the latest to face backlash over woke merchandise
Business by HatetheSwamp     May 30, 2023 7:18 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [5 views]


Law selectors, pages, etc.
My response to questions asked in an op-ed about the Depp-Heard verdict.
By Curt_Anderson
June 3, 2022 8:25 pm
Category: Law

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com

Share

Rate this
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

Charlotte Proudman wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, titled "The Depp-Heard verdict is a gag order for women". Proudman is described as a barrister. In her piece she asks three questions of the reader. My answers are yes, yes and yes.

1. Do you think itís fair that a woman had to testify before a man she says abused her, while that man sat there, smirking?

2. Do you think itís fair that, throughout the trial, the most intimate and traumatic details were broadcast for the world to see?

3. Do you think itís fair that Heard was ordered to pay millions of dollars for writing an article that didnít even name the man who has prevailed in this case?

In answer to questions 1 and 2, the Sixth Amendment provides that a defendant has a right to face his/her accusers. The Sixth also provides for the right to public trial. In this case, which was a defamation case in civil court, Johnny Depp was not technically the defendant. Of course, it being a defamation case, Depp naturally was obliged to refute the defaming comments. Amber Heard was being sued for defamation. She counter-sued Depp. At any rate the participants in a court case have the right to be there and are not obliged to remain expressionless.

It's a bit rich to complain that "intimate and traumatic details" were made public, after Ms. Heard alluded to the alleged details in her widely read op-ed in the Washington Post. By doing so, she opened Pandora's Box. As a famous movie actress, she should have expected some controversy from her op-ed. Heard was sued in a civil case, but victims of sexual and other forms of violence are forced to relive the traumatic events of the crimes committed against them. That's an unfortunate aspect of having a justice system and public trials. The alternative, secret trials in which the accused doesn't see the accuser, is worse.

Regarding question 3, that Heard didn't explicitly name Johnny Depp is an weak defense against a claim of libel. Having recently ended her marriage to Depp in very contentious divorce, Depp's name didn't need to be mentioned. Certainly, Hollywood producers would know who she was talking about as would many movie-goers. Nor did Amber Heard attempt to defend herself by saying it wasn't about Johnny Depp.


Cited and related links:

  1. washingtonpost.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "My response to questions asked in an op-ed about the Depp-Heard verdict. ":

  1. by HatetheSwamp on June 4, 2022 3:50 am

    Curt,

    As you know, it's rare that we agree but I would have answered the questions in the same way you do.

    As I noted in another thread, I'm a news junkie, as all of us who are currently active here are, but I don't follow PEOPLE MAGAZINE news.

    My wife likes to watch real crime shows so, when the trial began, we were watching FORENSIC FILES on HLN and saw that, at 10:00 that night, there'd be an update on the day's happenings in the Heard/Depp trial. Neither of us knew what that was. Apparently, HLN did that after every day of the trial. We never watched. Talk about much ado about nuthin!

    I did notice on my Twitter feed, after the verdict, a common take was:

    BELIEVE ALL WOMEN: except Amber Heard...and, of course, Tara Reade!


Go To Top

Comment on: "My response to questions asked in an op-ed about the Depp-Heard verdict. "

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page