Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "ACLU Reveals They Wrote Amber Heard Op-Ed, Conflict Of Interest?" video.

  1. Only the plaintiff's case has been heard so far.
    4
  2. Kim is the only truly independent thinker here.
    4
  3. That testimony was just effectively countered.
    4
  4. Just one more mob, following one more diversion.
    3
  5. Kim was the only independent thinker here. AGAIN.
    3
  6.  @john-ry9tn  AMEN
    2
  7.  @stud6414  You must be part of the latest mob, and don't know it.
    2
  8.  @philyoosays  If these facts about Depp were developed in a court, in a free country with a solid judicial system, then Heard isn't like Smollett, who did no such thing. We have a mob forming again. It just finds new targets, without much rhyme or reason. Your country, your problem.
    2
  9.  @infernodtw2423  If Depp was emotionally abusive, more than trivially, and more than in response to provocation, the article is not defamatory. It's free speech.
    2
  10. Kim was the only independent thinker here, AGAIN. Don't be so jealous. Emulate her. Try. Leave the latest cult.
    2
  11.  @threepac  Was this article written after the UK trial? BTW, did you read the article?
    2
  12. Every defamation case chips away at free speech rights. Maybe you should read up on that.
    1
  13.  @kevinh3979  Wow, you are obsessed with me. And have lined up behind a 60-year-old child with a big drug problem. Congrats. A great mob to join.
    1
  14.  @hugomaritz692  Depp isn't on trial. Enough has already been brought forward in his case, from his side, to show he did abuse her. Even horrid people have First Amendment rights. Even people with a criminal record should not be mistreated, much less killed, by police. See? Consistent.
    1
  15.  @hugomaritz692  Or maybe you don't know that every defamation case chips away at free speech rights. Or maybe you don't recognize that a mob has formed. Mobs will believe anything and go after anyone.
    1
  16. Here is the actual First Amendment issue: Let's put this case aside. Let's try a pure hypothetical. A man abused his former wife. She, however, abused him as well, and engaged in truly odd psychological behavior intended to goad him, rather than making honest attempts to get his abuse to end. Does he have a right to tell his story? Can he publish it? Suppose he tells the truth about her abuse of him, but fails to acknowledge his abuse of her? That may be a pretty seedy discourse, even an infuriating one, and partial, and misleading -- but it is not defamation. It is First Amendment-protected. Or at least it used to be. "Be careful what you wish for." As for Depp, he has never faced charges. He has only sued, in two countries now. The crowd has you believing he's the victim.
    1
  17.  @hugomaritz692  That's not the standard in defamation. He needs to turn this into a "who was worse" trial. He cannot win a defamation case if they follow the law. See my hypothetical, if it's vi si ble.
    1
  18.  @hugomaritz692  She said "domestic abuse." Did he abuse her? If so, then it is at most misleading, not false. First Amendment applies, in principle.
    1
  19.  @hugomaritz692  Okay, you're just ignorant. Fine.
    1
  20.  @hugomaritz692  George Floyd was really murdered, and he was one among thousands who have been. No one had to believe twenty impossible things before breakfast to join in the protests, like you do, claiming defamation isn't about speech (!!!) and not even bothering to look it up.
    1
  21.  @hugomaritz692  Police have killed thousands of people. You do know that, right? The Guardian kept a count. To compare that to this brawl between two millionaire druggies to a public homicide by police . . . That is an example of what I mean.
    1
  22. Depends on what it is evidence of. If the issue is whether a person screamed "help," and I heard them myself, I can testify to that. It does not, however, prove the person screaming really needed help. It could be a ruse, for example.
    1
  23. Most people don't know what hearsay is.
    1
  24. He already lost one lawsuit. This one is pure vindictiveness. To get the crowd on his side. Another Mattias Desmet moment.
    1
  25.  @philyoosays  Smollett lost his case. As did Depp in UK.
    1
  26.  @infernodtw2423  Same factual basis, only there he had a better case. And lost.
    1
  27.  @philyoosays  Certainly not. I'm not disputing that. A person here can face federal charges and state charges on the same facts, but different laws.
    1
  28.  @philyoosays  This is a new hysteria, with new enemies. When you're in it, it just feels so right.
    1
  29.  @philyoosays  That cannot be dispositive. There was ample evidence in that case. The other side is only beginning to present its case, but you already "know the truth." Listen, this is more cult behavior. I'm not going to continue arguing with you. I disagree with the premise that those of us who are not swept up in it have a duty to speak. I think we have a duty to ourselves to identify the phenomenon and steer clear until it dies down. I noticed Kim was the only independent thinker here. AGAIN. She did not pile on.
    1
  30.  @infernodtw2423 Where did I say there are no questions of material fact? Show me. I said the article alleged to be defamatory has nothing to do with Heard making baseless claims. We've only heard one side because plaintiffs have to proceed first, to make their case. BTW, did you read the article that is alleged to be defamatory? Did you read the complaint?
    1
  31.  @infernodtw2423  And how does that make her like Smollett?
    1
  32.  @infernodtw2423   By the way, you are obviously knowledgeable, so I am sure you are aware that every defamation case chips away at free speech rights. The remedy for "bad speech" is more speech. That's the bedrock First Amendment principle. Why didn't Depp hire a ghost writer and an editor, and write an autobiography? Instant best seller. Nothing whatsoever prevented him from telling everyone his side. And creating artistically, instead of this vindictive rehashing of the same facts. Of all the witnesses so far, Dr. Hughes of course stands out, but so does Depp's friend, the artist who teared up. I'm sure it was hard for him to have to say he doesn't pay rent, yet he contributed something human and heartfelt to this trial. I agree with him that this needs to end. That's the moral element of the story for me.
    1
  33.  @kevinh3979  No, it's that I am not prone to join a mob, or participate in ritual stoning. My first language wasn't English, so your attempt to put me in my place will not work --- but my independence of spirit will infuriate you. That's jealousy, by the way. Who do I think I am, to resist the noble crowd? Well, you can't get to me. (You can't get to Kim, either. No traction.)
    1
  34.  @kevinh3979  Right, I'm supposed to forget that defamation cases chip away at free speech. We've had to forget lots and lots of stuff over these past few years. Well, since 9/11, but more so since COVID.
    1
  35.  @kevinh3979  I just reread my comments. They're better than I remembered. You should read everything I wrote here, especially about the artist. If it's shadowed, that would come as no surprise. Well-founded and well-written comments have been removed from the Internet for years, on suspicion of being professional ad copy. You knew that, right? 🤣
    1
  36.  @kevinh3979  I see from your comments that you are right wing. Do you remember Depp's assassination joke directed at Trump? Days after the DC shooting? How misogynistic are you that you've forgotten, and lined up behind this clown? The real left is smarter. Gee I wonder why.
    1
  37. Did Depp already lose the defamation case in UK against a tabloid, before the ACLU got involved? What was the time line?
    1
  38. A divorce settlement does not earmark where funds from the settlement have to go. No such agreement. The ACLU is not Depp's child.
    1
  39.  @kevinh3979  No, you have a mob mentality problem. Of course you don't know it.
    1