Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Johnny Depp VICTORIOUS Over Amber Heard. Jury Finds BOTH Liable For Defamation" video.

  1.  @billfrench1069  How dare she know the law? Just how dare she.
    6
  2.  @billfrench1069  Kim got her point. Kim always gets it.
    4
  3.  @Papadoc1000  Robbie was ridiculous. The one time a self-styled libertarian goes against libertarian principles is in a First Amendment case, and for what reason, precisely? Briahna gave the correct analysis. This was not about "MeToo," which any sane person saw as garbage, but about free speech.
    4
  4. She gave the FIRST sound legal analysis I've heard. Sorry if titillation is what you need need NEED.
    3
  5.  @cranberryeater7459  The mass hysteria a couple of mass hysterias ago, before this one.
    3
  6.  @1848revolt  Well, that's idiotic, too. A defamation case, especially about an op-ed, is a First Amendment case. It's not about "metoo," which was another mass hysteria. It's not about who the worse offender in a relationship turned out to be. It's about whether specific speech or writing is First Amendment-protected.
    2
  7.  @rupertneverton3887  Kim got it. You cannot get anything past Kim. 🤣
    2
  8.  @alexandereckert5939  OH, Cancel Culture! Especially when someone knows something and you don't like it. That's just maddening.
    2
  9.  @naasking  Of course. And BJG was invited to share her legal opinion. Where do people see that she was rude?
    2
  10. Her analysis was correct, because it analyzed the article correctly. This was a First Amendment case. Heard's lawyers were horrible.
    2
  11. Her analysis is correct.
    1
  12.  @GM-db4bv  That this was a First Amendment case. Depp's own testimony was sufficient to show that the article was not defamatory, and therefore First Amendment-protected. But if you shift the issue away from that, to who was worse in the marriage, then it makes sense that Depp should win. But that's not the issue in defamation. In America, even louses have First Amendment rights. Even murderers do. Did you read the article, by the way?
    1
  13.  @GM-db4bv  I just watched again. Brie was exactly on point.
    1
  14.  @GM-db4bv  Nope. It is saying that articles are presumed to be First Amendment-protected, and that defamation cases are about specific articles, not about general conduct that caused tortious harm to people in all kinds of ways, including hurting their ability to make a living in their profession. Because that's actually the law. Defamation is about speech, not about all the lousy things the speaker did.
    1
  15.  @GM-db4bv  You never read the article, huh?
    1
  16.  @GM-db4bv  You notice KIM got it. She never succumbs to crowd think. Really never. :)
    1
  17.  @GM-db4bv  Because the trial became about who was worse, something Heard of course could not win, and the jury decided to mete out proportional punishment. Do you think it makes sense that Depp was held liable for something his lawyer blurted out? No one should ever be held liable for that, unless they entered into some kind of criminal or quasi-criminal conspiracy. This was not a coherent verdict. It was based on feelings, not law. "Feewings" again. So sick of it.
    1
  18.  @GM-db4bv  I once debriefed a juror who convicted a factually innocent man of a mass homicide, after the man was finally proved to be innocent and freed. It would shake you to hear about what can happen in a jury room.
    1
  19. That wasn't an issue in the case. Depp was able to make it the issue. The only issue was whether a particular writing was defamatory.
    1
  20.  @livingroomcomputer7148  What do you believe the main issue was?
    1
  21.  @livingroomcomputer7148  🤣 they sure made it seem that way
    1
  22.  @beefstorm914  Blocked. I don't have to tolerate platitudes and ad hom. (The case with that "fire" blather was overturned ages ago, BTW. That dicta tells you nothing.)
    1
  23.  @livingroomcomputer7148  That wasn't obvious in the least. The trial succeeded in shifting the issue away from the allegedly defamatory article to who was worse in the marriage. That belongs in divorce court, or in this case probably a criminal trial. It doesn't belong in a defamation case that turned into a show trial. And now, people who point that out have to be concerned about their jobs -- and what else? Their safety? You think the First Amendment isn't under attack? Oh brother.
    1
  24.  @rupertneverton3887  Depp's own testimony brought out enough "domestic abuse" to support the assertion BJG is making. What was established while he was on the stand was enough under the law. The split verdict is incoherent, also. I bet it was a compromise, to go home.
    1
  25.  @TeflonAlexander Well, what statements do you cite that she made? The only one in the article that clearly refers to Depp is indeed the phrase "domestic abuse." If you paid attention, you know that the texts were not the only evidence of domestic abuse, and what people say to others most certainly was given probative value for both Depp and Heard.
    1
  26.  @rupertneverton3887  But that's just it. The trial became about the marriage, rather than the article. Defamation is about specific instances of speech or writing, for which First Amendment protection is presumed, and you are supposed to have a hefty burden to remove that protection.
    1
  27.  @rupertneverton3887  Where in the world did you see me say anything about "beyond reasonable doubt?" "Most likely false" is not the New York Times malice standard, either. The speculation that the split verdict reflects a compromise strikes me as pretty astute.
    1
  28.  @rupertneverton3887  If she didn't write the article, then why did he sue her? Sue the writer and publisher. Depp lost roles before this article came out, and also as the result of losing a defamation case in the UK. He has substance abuse issues, which I can believe Heard made worse. But that's for divorce court. He basically recoups what he gave her there, plus a little more, interestingly enough.
    1
  29.  @livingroomcomputer7148  Actually, the guest got the New York Times malice standard wrong, so she never looked at the jury instructions. Pop culture is never about jury instructions.
    1
  30. @livingRoom Computer: I know the trial turned away from whether the article was false and became a fight about who was worse. Heard could never win that, no. Although the jury decided to punish both to some extent -- which makes no sense. I don't even think a person like Depp should ever be held liable for a lawyer's statement. Really never, unless they joined in a criminal conspiracy or something.
    1
  31.  @Flamingtorpedostrike  🤣 A "/s " is needed for, like, everything now.
    1
  32. Briahna just had a guest on her show discussing the ravages of anti-male bias and the harms it is causing, among other things, streamed a few hours ago.
    1
  33.  @streamylc  What does Whoopie know, compared with BJG? Whoopie did not know Jill Biden isn't an MD, for cripe's sake. When Whoopie misspoke about the Holocaust, showing her ignorance, Brie was on an excellent panel that talked openly about race in ways you never hear. Man, do smart women get the street swept with them! Stop punishing her for READING.
    1
  34.  @thomas730813  "Malice" is an unfortunate term of art in defamation law, and only applies to very well known people who are in the spotlight, and whose activities are a legitimate matter of public interest.
    1
  35.  @streamylc  Project much? Maybe you can't stand it when somebody knows something. I think that informed people are too nice to the bloviators who think their uninformed opinions are as important or better than the opinions of people who took the time to study. Robbie sounds like he never read the article or any court documents, which are online everywhere. If you crave a race to the bottom, just keep it up. If you think style is that much more important than substance, just keep it up. You're really reaching. My family isn't American, and I won't be staying. You think about you. It won't be my problem. Someone needs to say it.
    1
  36.  @streamylc  She was right, about the law and the facts. She can't be? Why? Where does she get her permission slip?
    1
  37.  @streamylc  You disrespected me by going to ad hom. Ironic. Nothing I said was a personal dig, everything I said had to do with the issues.
    1
  38.  @beefstorm914  I find Briahna's intelligence on her own podcast rare, and a breath of fresh air.
    1
  39.  @streamylc  Well, this was more cordial.
    1
  40.  @streamylc  If Brie is the first to point out these facts, give her props. Why not? She earned them, unlike a certain Amber.
    1
  41. @Mega Pint & Muffins The attack on the intelligent remains unabated. You can see where that has got you.
    1
  42. @Mega Pint & Muffins The First Amendment, on the other hand, needs defending real bad.
    1
  43. Not the point. No one disputes that.
    1
  44.  @TeflonAlexander But did you actually read it? Do you know what it said? This verdict has nothing to do with the article. The trial turned into who was worse in the marriage, and the jury returned a split verdict as proportionate punishment. That's not what a defamation case is supposed to be about. Briahna and Kim got it. The guest was mostly good, too.
    1
  45.  @Takobella  Of course I didn't. Who has that kind of time to waste? Reading the article and even the NYTimes v. Sullivan case is more efficient. I watched enough to see how the trial morphed into something that had no bearing on the real issue. Of course Amber could not win a trial based on who treated the other person worse. She was very likely a lot worse. But that's not a defamation case, that is a divorce redux -- and Depp got back the money he paid her then, and a little bit more. (Or how do you explain the ridiculous $2m award for defamation that she got, based on something Depp did not even say himself? Do the math.)
    1
  46.  @coady4577  No one says nothing in the article is about him. That was not an issue. PARTS of the article are certainly not about him, because she talks about her life long before she met him and clearly distinguishes that. But it is true she got the platform because of having been married to Depp.
    1
  47.  @coady4577  He did abuse her. It was shown by his own testimony. She almost certainly abused him worse. That's an issue in other types of cases, including criminal cases, not in defamation.
    1
  48. Except neither that, nor "MeToo" were issues in the case. The issue was one article. Did you read it?
    1
  49.  @darcyschneider8525  Reading not your thing huh. (She even stated she never saw herself as a victim.)
    1
  50.  @darcyschneider8525  "Criminally slandered?" -- yikes, where to start. Briahna and Kim got this. The guest had good points as well, not legally as strong but good insights.
    1
  51.  @darcyschneider8525  It was not a criminal case. How do you know the jury got it right? If you don't know defamation cases are about whether a particular writing is defamation or protected by the First Amendment, as it is presumed to be, and not about whether the writer or speaker is a vile creep, then maybe you should listen more closely to Brie and Kim, especially Kim. She never succumbs to crowd think, really never. Impressive woman.
    1
  52. They are defending the First Amendment. So far, only the Second appears to be on secure footing.
    1
  53. This was the best report I've seen so far. No one here defended her. That was entirely not the point.
    1
  54.  @liquidocelot4885  I was making a joke. Irony? You've heard of it?
    1
  55.  @liquidocelot4885  A defamation case is about a specific instance of SPEECH or writing, and whether it has First Amendment protection, as we start by presuming it does. It is not about whether the speaker is a louse.
    1
  56.  @liquidocelot4885  She was not found guilty. She was found liable.
    1
  57. THANK YOU KIM AND BRIAHNA. Finally. We have to come here for sanity, of COURSE.
    1
  58. I've never seen so much insanity. She should appeal. So should he.
    1
  59. Robbie, the ARTICLE stated no such thing. A libertarian doesn't understand that this is a First Amendment case about a specific article?
    1
  60. Her analysis was correct.
    1