Sarah Storer
The response to Johnny Depp winning his Defamation case against ex-wife Amber Heard is an unnerving ending to six weeks of both parties reliving their shared traumas and turbulent marriage. Due to laws in Virginia, USA, a judge permitted a public recording, despite the sensitivities.
In a society obsessed with Love Island, Selling Sunset and the Kardashian franchise, it is hard not to see how an individual becomes hooked by watching every minute of the trial like it’s a new episode of a constructed reality.
But this trial is not reality made for television. It was a civil court case, discussing sensitive, personal matters. When taken out of context can be damaging for all involved. It is this generation’s OJ Simpson trial, impossible to ignore without deleting social media entirely.
Defamation is a civil trial in both the UK and the US. Much like the trial in the UK, this trial was not a Divorce case, nor was it a criminal case against domestic violence. Depp sued Heard for the column she wrote in The Washington Post, titled: “I spoke up against sexual violence – and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.” Heard did not mention Depp once.
Trial by TikTok
Miscommunication spread like wildfire across social media, most notably TikTok, which makes it hard for an individual to find the context of the trial.
Depp and Heard’s relationship maintains heavy coverage across all mediums. His Defamation suit against The Sun also gained widespread attention and had countless fans camping outside showcasing their support for the actor.
Depp lost this case against The Sun, as well as an appeal a few months later. The Sun, after all, brought in Heard as their evidence to conclude they were right for calling him a “wife-beater.”
How can one country’s justice system rule a different outcome than the other, presumably with the same evidence?
The answer lies in the judge’s decision to permit recording. This way, millions of people received the trial in their laps to watch at their beck and call. Entertainment drives social media, and people found a way to make this trial entertaining.
YouTube videos titled Johnny Depp’s best moments in court and hour-long videos analysing body language; women made-up to look like Heard mocking her experiences on your TikTok For You Page in-between videos of funny dogs and ASOS hauls; people getting tattoos of Depp’s lawyer Camille Vasquez.
The seven-person jury was not isolated during this trial. After listening to hours of evidence, they would go home; check social media; see memes of the trial; go to bed; do the same thing the next day. If the jury is not isolated in such a high-profile case like this, does it count as a fair trial?
When experiencing a trial like this, it is impossible to understand the full complexities of the case. Following a curated selection of it does not make an individual the expert, despite their watching hours upon hours of so-called content.
Everyone’s a True Crime expert
Young people are exposed to misinformation. They become too easily influenced into portraying Heard as an evil woman set on ruining Depp’s career. In a post #MeToo world, this seems like a backwards step.
Viral posts on social media spread like wildfire. Depp had decades of celebrity fandom behind him (Heard is much younger, she did not have the time to build upon this). Fans of all ages rally behind him and spread countless videos and texts mocking Heard.
Depp’s position as a celebrity means these die-hard fans cannot see past the fact their favourite actor may have done some of the things Heard claims. (They also ignore the court ruling in the UK, as it’s not in their favour.)
Amber Heard did not stand a chance in this trial. Even if she was lying in some of her testimonies, something caused her to write the Post article in the first place. She still represents someone standing in front of their abuser, and yet called a liar on all accounts. This case sets a precedent for any person who wants to stand up to their abuser in court.
Are they no longer believed due to the damaging risk? Or do they now no longer think others will believe them, and they are liars just like Amber Heard? It also provides space for other celebrities to go down the same path. Marilyn Manson may sue his ex-girlfriend Evan Rachel Wood for defamation.
Human interest drives news, and this case brought a lot of it. We find ourselves swept along with the adrenaline. We forget for one moment, that this case features real people with implications on a personal level. As hard as it may be, sometimes it is best to step away and really examine the scene with impartial eyes.
Featured image courtesy of Tingey Injury Law Firm via Unsplash. Image license can be found here. No changes were made to this image.
sarahstorer
Sarah has recently graduated from Newcastle University with an MA in International Multimedia Journalism. When she’s not editing the Opinions Section, you can find her at the cinema or on the beach with her dog.