Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Johnny Depp amused as witness mocks articles written about actor | LiveNOW from FOX" video.

It is evidence of what it SAID, not evidence that what is said is the truth. It is evidence of "reputation." How else do you prove what The Sun said? You have to produce an authentic copy.
8
@Sammich_baybee It cannot be presented in court at all unless reputation has a direct bearing on calculating damages from this alleged libel.
5
@Sammich_baybee Define "hearsay." No, the First Amendment is not a "loophole." YIKES. No wonder.
5
@Nofinator Exactly. But they also participate in forming reputations, right or wrong. It is unfortunate that tabloids can do that, and celebrities usually need PR professionals to help them control for that. BTW, do you believe everything they say about Harry and Megan? Just curious.
5
@kevinmyers440 Great point. They just use different tactics of persuasion.
5
Yes. On these boards, where a cult is taking shape.
3
@erepsekahs Well, it is certainly a real trial, but the underlying purpose is not to win $50 million in damages, no. The purpose is more likely to put on a show and to settle scores, and possibly write a book. Very astute comment, by the way. We are seeing a cult or a mob coalesce before our eyes. Too bad Depp didn't just write a memoir. Much more positive than this.
3
@tonya--7704 At issue is a text, and whether that text is defamation, not who The Bad Guy Really Is.
2
@wilmameijer437 I don't pretend this system is ideal, but that is the process, and everyone knows that, going in. It's an adversarial system because it is constructed that way. Of course the plaintiff must go first, to make his case. He has the burden of proof.
2
@Sunshine-n1n The plaintiff's complaint is online. You could download that, for example.
2
@ContentMadame His perspective is one you should seriously consider. You want informed people to "humble themselves" before the group. The exact opposite is needed. Just how many more mass hysterias do you want to see? Better to calm down, sit back, and ponder other possible explanations of what is going on. The dominant one on these boards is sheer nonsense.
2
@erepsekahs Your take is the best one I've read, and certainly the most original, an example of independent thought. Who brings a claim like this twice? Who takes that idea at face value?
2
@chrismogard4144 WAIT. Are you saying Putin DIDN'T do anything to Dior? You are risking cancellation.
2
It is evidence of what the tabloids SAID, not evidence that what they said is the truth. It is evidence of "reputation." It can't be introduced, unless reputation bears directly on an issue the plaintiff himself raised, like how to calculate the damages, who caused how much of the damages, etc. How do you think you decide "reputation?" Yeah, the goofy reviews some jerk wrote about you online could count one day. It's possible.
1
Depp is suing Heard for $50 million. Guess what? Before a court orders someone to pay money, and seizes their bank account and other assets, grabs their house, and so forth, the plaintiff has to PROVE they really lost $50 million on account of the defendant, and for no other reason. If other magazines like The Sun wrote derogatory things about Depp, he sued for defamation, and lost, then maybe just maybe he lost movie deals on account of THOSE articles.
1
Sure. Goes to WHO damaged Depp.
1
@bonniehowell9206 What do you think is the issue? It's whether Heard's mild article is responsible for $50 million in Depp's losses. If Depp had a terrible reputation already, then how is that Heard's fault? Before a court orders someone to pay money, and seizes their bank account and other assets, grabs their house, and so forth, the plaintiff has to PROVE they really lost $50 million on account of the defendant, and for no other reason. Is that too tough to grasp? Why?
1
@MrJamberee How did the media dupe you all?
1
@bonniehowell9206 It's relying on these tabloids to show that it's laughable to think that Heard's mild article ruined Depp's reputation to the tune of causing $50 million in losses.
1
@Jezebel066 Correct!!!! Ding ding dung ding ding. That was perfect.
1
@js1241 He's suing her.
1
@squishyushi Wrong.
1
@tonya--7704 Whether she was abusive as well is not an issue. If he wants the court to order the sheriff to start seizing Heard's assets -- her house, her car, her bank accounts, her jewelry, etc., etc., he has to prove that the article she wrote was false and that it was responsible for costing him $50 million in film deals. This testimony bears on whether his reputation was already damaged, by far worse allegations, in many news outlets. This is relevant. Whether Heard is a worse person than he is may be true, but it's not relevant. I kind of doubt it, though. He had 23 more years and two more relationships to do whatever it is he does.
1
@tonya--7704 The point of the line of questioning in this video is to show that any claim that she ruined his career makes no sense. His lost film deals cannot be traced back to her article. The only way you can show what people are saying about you is to quote them. It's not hearsay to show what was said, to prove it was said. It could all be false, but it is still factual that it was said. It goes to "reputation." Reputation is often unfair. Rich people spend millions on public relations for a reason.
1
@wilmameijer437 That's because direct examination of the witnesses for your side is different from cross examination of opposing witnesses.
1
@wilmameijer437 Much of Europe has laws against severe harassment in the workplace, and it can be prosecuted as a crime if it's bad enough, like if it makes people sick. Do you have that? Remember the Orange case in France, the privatized telephone company that used to be part of the PTT? That CEO was sentenced to prison. I like that system. :)
1
@wilmameijer437 It was shocking. There were suicides, I think even one in the company parking lot. It was considered the worst company to work for in France.
1
@wilmameijer437 I just found an article,"Telecom Giant Orange on Trial." There were 19 suicides, twelve more attempts.😢
1
It is evidence of what The Sun SAID, not evidence that any of what it said is the truth. It is evidence of "reputation." How else do you prove what The Sun said? You have to produce an authentic copy. You cannot introduce it at all unless reputation bears directly on an issue in the case that the plaintiff himself brought up, like calculating damages. If it doesn't, it cannot be introduced.
1
@Freigeist2008 How do Europeans prove that something was written in a newspaper? Don't they have to produce the newspaper? Do newspaper articles bear on "reputation?" Reputation is an issue in the case because the causation of damage to reputation (and how much damage) is an issue. These boards have devolved into cult behavior and mob mentality. Anyone who can still think for themselves knows this. They explained what they were doing in the video.
1
@Freigeist2008 Then how do you assess damage to reputation from an article, if another paper printed something derogatory first, you sued them, and they won? It's a question of pricing it. Your reputation was damaged and you lost work already.
1
@katiemilku Imagining you think you know a stranger . . .
1
@erepsekahs Had Depp never lost, I would probably fall for it. If I didn't know the law (i.e., if he abused her, he cannot win in defamation even if she was horrid as well; if his reputation was toast, if his drug use made him an insurance risk, and if he was fired after losing the first case, he cannot collect meaningful damages), I would probably fall for it. But this? No, this is not a real case first of all. This is a performance first of all.
1
@chrismogard4144 He lost a defamation suit in UK and is an insurance risk due to drugs. It's Putin's fault, I mean Heather's, no wait this one is named Amber.
1
@chrismogard4144 Oh, I thought Putin did something to Dior. My bad.
1
@Nofinator I don't endorse the tabloids. I think they are odious. After they won the case Depp brought, his lawyers could not keep it out. He basically acknowledged they had an effect on his reputation and ability to practice his art by bringing the case. BTW, this is one reason why so many people do not sue for libel, even when they have an excellent case. It's a risk. 😐 Very unfair, actually.
1
@djmelodyex It was brought in as evidence of reputation, for the purpose of challenging damages due to the article alleged to be defamatory here. They explained why it was introduced. After Depp lost his suit against The Sun, they couldn't keep it out.
1