General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

L.W. Paradis
The Hill
comments

Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Johnny Depp Defamation Trial Is A TRAINWRECK For Amber Heard: Robby Soave" video.

@nottherealxandercrews4742 What "overreaching?" An article is presumed to be First Amendment-protected. Did you read the article?
4
@lucindalaree4666 Absolutely. I knew MeToo had turned into a mob, and was not protecting women, but was hurting men. There is no mystery that Depp v. Heard is doing exactly the opposite: hurting women and not protecting men. I completely agree about the larger meaning.
3
Did you read her article? That's what the case is about. Whether the article is First Amendment-protected or whether Heard can be punished for it by having her assets seized and turned over to Depp. Briahna was too quick to look to societal ramifications, rather than the core issue: every defamation case is about speech or writing that is presumed to be First Amendment-protected, and the plaintiff is trying to prove it should not be. He is trying to silence someone else rather than telling his own story. I thought Americans believed "the remedy for bad speech is more speech." I also thought Americans were opposed to show trials. Ha.
3
Did you read the article? Do people know defamation is a claim that the speaker should be punished for their speech? In other words, Depp is saying Heard doesn't have the First Amendment right to publish the article she did. Not that she's morally wrong, but that she should be silenced by a court of law. Robbie's citation of hearsay concerning Heard's sister was odd. Heard's sister has already testified on her behalf. But this shouldn't even be a trial. Depp lost once, in UK, and had a better case. This is pure payback, and people are falling for it.
2
@Gretchen K. You missed the main point: should a court sanction unethical speech? Or should we meet bad speech with more speech, not attempts at silencing through the power of courts? That used to be the principle. Somehow that's been jettisoned, too. How fast things change.
2
@Gretchen K. I am a lawyer, California Bar, federal clerkship. It's not me who missed the point. This is becoming tragic.
2
@mikereinhardt1244 He lost a deal when he lost a defamation case -- a better one, in UK. If he can twist the question here into "who was worse," and not whether the article Heard wrote was false, he might win. And the First Amendment principle that we should meet bad speech with more speech, not suppression, will be what suffers. But that's nothing new.
2
@aditis8669 I like her. She is more genuine and tremendously sharp on her own show. Rising is poor without Kim.
2
I LOVE YOUR POST. Why don't people see through this? At this point I can't fathom it.
1
Depp already lost a defamation case in UK, and lost one movie deal after that.
1
Then why is it a defamation trial? Defamation is about whether speech or writing is First Amendment-protected or can be punished by silencing the speaker and turning their assets over to the aggrieved party. In other words, it's about what Heard wrote, not whether she was worse. (Did you read the article?) Marital disputes are brought to family court, or sometimes criminal court.
1
Depp sued a second time. He already lost a better defamation case in UK. Why do you think he's doing this again?
1
He lost work after he lost a previous defamation case in UK, where he had a much better case. He is also hard to insure in Hollywood because he has substance abuse issues. Did you read her article? That's what the case is about. Whether the article is First Amendment-protected or whether she can be punushed for it by having her assets seized and turned over to Depp.
1
And why is that right?
1
@YoungSandyGray No, I actually know the law. And I state it correctly. I saw through Russiagate and MeToo. Why don't you see through this? I know mobs when I see them. The frequency with which new ones are cropping up is disturbing.
1
@Gretchen K. So, you're going to quote dictum from a case that has been overruled, and that does not apply here in any event. The New York Times malice standard applies here -- and even I agree that it creates too high a barrier for plaintiffs in defamation in the contemporary world. (But the First Amendment is under a lot of attack lately, so it may just be best to leave New York Times malice alone. C.f. recent dissents from denial of certiorari by Thomas and Gorsuch, however.) Speech and writing, like the allegedly defamatory article, is presumed to be First Amendment-protected, and it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence that it is not. (I.e., Depp in this case must prove it.) The old chestnut that "you can't evade the consequences of your speech" is true, and vague, and illuminates nothing. WHO should mete out the consequences? And WHAT should those consequences be? You must not have ever practiced in this area. Don't get so angry. Pick up Nadine Strossen, or Chemerinsky.
1
@Gretchen K. Ad hominem, and so quickly?
1
@Gretchen K. "Guess what? Another little mob has formed! Get out of its way." Speaking of censorship, who knows which of my posts were shadowed? The al go rythm probably presumes that all real discussion of the law is mis/dis/mal inform a tion. Trash talk is never eliminated, somehow.
1
@cookiemonster208 Where did I say that? Nowhere. I simply explained the law. What is at issue in defamation is whether . . . Oh never mind. You can't follow more than a meme. What? Are they shadowing everything besides hashtags and trash talk?
1
@Gretchen K. Besides, Depp is suing for defamation per se. If proved, damages are automatic. The amount is the only issue.
1
@cookiemonster208 Remember Rush Limbaugh? "ArE yOu SAyinG??!" Don't do that for free. Make millions.
1
@macthomas8899 Did you read the article? If the article is not false, it is not defamation. If his career was shot for other reasons, the article cannot give rise to the damages he wants. This is true even if the speaker/writer is immoral.
1
@skontheroad "Malice" is purely a term of art in defamation law, and has nothing to do discerning anyone's mental state. Look up "New York Times malice standard." Juries have sent innocent men to death. This one should really make you pause before you praise it. There is NO WAY the concomitant $2 million verdict against Depp makes any sense whatsoever; it looks like they were punishing people according to their notion of relative "badness." That should make everyone worry -- barely above the logic of a twitter mob. You never know when they'll turn on you.
1
@skontheroad I.e., if an article is true, it cannot meet the malice standard.
1
@skontheroad Okay, you didn't look up New York Times malice standard. Your choice. Every defamation case implicates the First Amendment BECAUSE it invokes the power of the court to seize assets in retribution for speech.
1
@skontheroad I know what happened in that case. It's one of the worst examples of lawyering I've ever seen, starting with not fighting the jurisdiction and venue. It's useless to try to discuss this. Once Depp planted the defecation image in the jury's minds, the case was almost certainly lost. If that was false, he succeeded in smearing Heard and can never be held to account for it (it's not perjury if he, in his inebriated state, believed it, and she cannot sue him for defamation because sworn testimony is immune from suit). He did vow to destroy her, in an electronic communication made years ago. The real pity for the public is that they were misled, yet again, about what was going on: they were losing First Amendment rights, and for what? A relitigation of a sick divorce case? For the pleasure of stoning a disturbed woman who married a drugged up man? The multimillionaires and billionaires will be fine. Money will always be speech.
1
@skontheroad "The jury felt . . . " Absolutely on target. It was not about thinking, it was all about feelings.
1
@skontheroad Here again, you are missing the point. Whether she was abusive to him as well, and whether she was in fact the primary abuser, has no relevance to the truth of the article. Did you read the article? You know, if you really don't care about your rights, and if any abused husband believes the aftermath of Depp v. Heard will help him in any way whatsoever, I do not know what to tell you. Any case where a stereotype is disrupted should matter, one would think, stereotypes being that men abuse women but not vice versa (in the case of physical abuse, it appears to be three to one men abusing women, but that's still a substantial number of women abusing men; in the case of severe emotional abuse, it's definitely not that high, and could even tip toward women, though we don't have firm data). But I can tell you, that will not happen. Some men may threaten women with defamation, but they are likely to be bluffing, or very rich -- and if the latter, the estranged wife already knew what the guy could do to her. In short, this case will have no bearing in family court, where these issues are considered for the rest of us non-hundred-millionaires. Refusing to wake up with the clock striking noon is really unattractive.
1
@skontheroad NEW YORK TIMES MALICE is a US SUPREME COURT First Amendment standard. That's why you should look it up. Delaware?? It was tried in Virginia. Okay, now I get it. You're wasting my time. Why are you wedded to writing this nonsense, without checking a single fact. I block all time wasters. You had your chance, you're on your own now. You know, if you act this way in life when you need a lawyer, a lot of them will size you up and figure out that they lie to you to get rid of you. ("You don't have a case," etc., when you do, it's just small potatoes; stuff like that.)
1
"Due process" is the new buzz word. This case has nothing to do with due process. Defamation is about whether speech or writing is First Amendment-protected, or can be punished. Why isn't Depp writing his own article? He is suing instead, because his testimony is immunized. He can't be sued for defamation for his testimony, and there is no way perjury could be proved.
1
@mikereinhardt1244 These are just his claims. There's no proof at all. He was becoming uninsurable in Hollywood due to his drug use, and he already lost a defamation case in UK, where he had a much better case. He lost a movie deal after that. I just can't believe that people don't see through this --- with Depp openly smirking the whole way.
1
Anyone who is not trying to win their case is abusing the court and the system. I'm glad I don't pay taxes in Virginia.
1
@mikereinhardt1244 Wrong again. Look up the "New York Times malice" standard. See what that is. EVERY defamation case implicates the First Amendment, every time. If you want to involve the government to seize someone's assets for something they wrote, you have to prove their speech should not be protected. Of course Depp can win if he makes it about Heard's reliability and not the article.
1
@mikereinhardt1244 Entirely wrong. And you won't take a moment to look up "New York Times malice." Why are you doing this to yourself? (The irony is that the press benefits from that standard the most, but you rarely hear it mentioned by them. Wonder why, huh?) Even I think the standard is too high a bar against defamation in the modern world. But it is the standard. And defamation isn't purely state-by-state; it is first of all subject to US Supreme Court First Amendment jurisprudence, which takes precedence over any state law. You may need the rights you are so willing to give up. I saw through MeToo, and realized it had turned into a mob. Why is it so hard to see that Depp v. Heard is exactly the same? MeToo hurt men and did not help women; this case does the opposite. And this mob is more vicious as far as I can see.
1
@mikereinhardt1244 I am a constitutional l*****. By the way. (The algorithm doesn't like it when I say so.) If that video told you that the First Amendment does not apply, it was quite simply wrong. You could look up "New York Times malice" and read for yourself.
1
@remyschrader9286 Look up "New York Times malice." It does not apply just to newspapers or journalists, but to all speakers. There is no specially protected class of speakers under the First Amendment. I despair . . . then I don't care.
1
@remyschrader9286 Sounds like you are confusing this with Section 230 protections? Some aspect of them? Nah. You just plain don't know. I never engaged, before the COVID lockdown fiasco. I was better off when I didn't.
1
@remyschrader9286 Even the Wikipedia article gives a decent summary, including how the Sullivan case, which set the standard, was a unanimous Supreme Court decision, and was extended to cover all public figures only a few years later, not just government officials. If you just bothered to look at that, and read the entire first section, a few paragraphs . . . But no. That's how we know this is a new hysteria.
1
@mikereinhardt1244 It was extended only a few years later to all public figures, in Curtis Publishing v. Butts. You only had to read about FOUR paragraphs to find that out. That was unbearable? Wow. The legal standard applicable here, in Depp v. Heard, is named after the seminal case. But you're right. I just need to get out of the way of this mob. I wish I knew what was coming next. Or maybe ignorance is bliss? Predicting trends can fatten your wallet.
1
@mikereinhardt1244 I already signaled that the case was extended, in the response directly above yours. (With the cen s or ship going on, it might be shadowed?)
1
@mikereinhardt1244 Blocked.
1
@mikereinhardt1244 Thanks. I think I'm cured of commenting ever again. This isn't pearls before swine, it's the Hope diamond before a toad.
1
@remyschrader9286 The debate was whether the First Amendment applies here, to set the standard the plaintiff must meet (fair or not). I'm glad you agree that it does.
1
@remyschrader9286 I didn't say those cases stamped out defamation. I said all defamation claims involving plaintiffs (like Depp) who are public figures must meet the First Amendment standard those cases set. (And even I agree it's probably too high! The irony!) Only you know what compelled you to chide me, before finding out I was right. If it wasn't the influence of the latest little mob to form, or some other source of passion or prejudice, wonderful. That's a win-win. Small point: used to be we did not look kindly at people who pursue lawsuits they cannot win, for the sake of proving something other than their case. We were also disturbed by anything that smacked of a show trial. Oh well. Times change.
1
@72spawndn The First Amendment cases concerning defamation set the presumption of protected speech, and established the standard of proof needed to rebut that presumption, making it very difficult to prove defamation (too difficult, imo . . . it has become controversial lately). If you are able to find the Wikipedia page for "New York Times malice," and then read at least four paragraphs, preferably more, you'll see what the problem is.
1
@isabeljimenez6067 This is a defamation case. It's about whether the article Heard wrote is First Amendment-protected or whether Heard can be punished for it by having her assets seized and turned over to Depp. Defamation is about free speech, not about who was worse. Domestic abuse cases belong in family court or criminal court, or some other venue. The bigger issue is that one mob after another is being unleashed, and few people seem to see it. That's the larger issue, not just "MeToo," but what all of this, including "MeToo," is a part of. There's no rhyme or reason to who is being pulled down next.
1
@isabeljimenez6067 That's the point. They are both subject to the New York TImes malice standard, which means it will be nearly impossible for Depp to prevail on his claim. Same for Heard on her counterclaim, but she didn't initiate proceedings, he did.
1
He lost a better defamation case in UK, and lost one movie deal after that. His substance abuse issues have created an insurance risk, and that is always a factor.
1
Did you read her article? That's what the case is about. Whether the article is First Amendment-protected or whether Heard can be punished for it by having her assets seized and turned over to Depp. The article makes no specific allegations at all, talks more about her life before she met Depp, and says she never saw herself as a "victim." I bet you didn't read it.
1
@theelmagoo He lost a defamation case already, and he poses an insurance risk due to substance abuse (which it sounds like Heard didn't help). This isn't a "guilty until proven innocent" scenario. Did you know he lost a better case, in UK? Yeah, that can hurt you.
1
@theelmagoo Where did you get this? It's not the legal standard at all. Look up New York Times malice.
1
@theelmagoo I'm mentioning insurance because of causation. If some other thing caused him to lose a deal, then the article cannot be blamed.
1
@theelmagoo i knew MeToo was a mob. I saw through that. Why don't you see through this? Just another mob -- and you're repeating false legal points that are either fabricated or date from around the time of the Civil War.
1
@theelmagoo Most of the law that applies is US Supreme Court FIrst Amendment jurisprudence. Even I think the New York Times malice standard protects too much speech from being considered defamatory -- but it's the law.
1
@theelmagoo Not what I said. Look up "New York Times malice." A weird term of art that even I think is too high a bar against proving defamation. In case of conflict, the Constitution rules. That's not my opinion. It's the law.
1
@theelmagoo The jury does not decide which law applies. The judge does. The jury is the finder of fact, the court instructs the jury as to the law. If the jury should fail to follow the law, the case will be overturned on appeal.
1
@theelmagoo The link was shadowed, by the way. That usually happens. :/ Annoying. ( . . . You really don't know that the Constitution is the preeminent law of the land? Juries can decide something different? Like, if in their opinion it shouldn't be? You're just kidding. I can tell.)
1
@theelmagoo You just did. 🤣 (i.e., we disagree as to the legal standard and "we'll find out what the jury thinks . . .") Nor is it a matter of opinion which law applies. The Constitution always preempts all other laws, state and federal. (Did you look up "New York Times malice?" Did you read the article alleged to be defamatory, by any chance?)
1
Did you read her article? That's what the case is about. Whether the article is First Amendment-protected or whether Heard can be punished for it by having her assets seized and turned over to Depp. Briahna was too quick to look to societal ramifications, rather than the core issue: every defamation case is about speech or writing that is presumed to be First Amendment-protected, and the plaintiff is trying to prove it should not be. He is trying to silence someone else rather than telling his own story. I thought Americans believed "the remedy for bad speech is more speech." I also thought Americans were opposed to show trials. Ha.
1
@graywalkerjoin3rdparty74 You think that being held liable and having your assets seized is not a punishment? Yes it is. It is a civil penalty. Second, Depp has the means to obtain the BEST legal counsel in the world, but somehow subjected himself to the British court system, and his lawyers were unable to warn him about what you just informed us of. How did that happen? If he lost work AFTER losing a defamation suit, by what rights do you imagine he is entitled to compensation? He subjected himself to a foreign court system, lost, and as a result, had contracts cancelled. That's not a result of the article, it is a result of a court case. By the way, this case is not about persons, it is about a writing. Have you read the article alleged to have been defamatory? Just curious. The deeper issue here is that we are turning into little mobs at the drop of a hat. I saw through MeToo. I knew it had rapidly deteriorated into a mob. It hurt men without protecting women. Depp v. Heard is doing the opposite, and it has unleashed a more ferocious mob. Will things get worse before they get better? I don't want to contemplate that. At some level I cannot understand, I really cannot.
1
@graywalkerjoin3rdparty74 What is your source that UK courts apply the Duluth Model? This is not a legal standard anywhere, not even in the US, where it originated. It is a program for intervention and rehabilitation of proven domestic abusers, and it is biased in that it was designed to reeducate men who abuse women. It has no bearing on defamation at all. Did Heard call an expert witness who uses it? Then Depp could have easily countered with his own expert. I think this is just a talking point you picked up.
1
@graywalkerjoin3rdparty74 If he lost work only after losing a prior defamation suit, then he cannot pin it on Amber. The proximate cause is losing the lawsuit. BTW, did you ever read the allegedly defamatory article? Just curious.
1
@graywalkerjoin3rdparty74 Not the point. Whether the article is defamation or protected speech is the sole issue in a defamation case. Not whether the person who signed it is generally a louse.
1
@graywalkerjoin3rdparty74 I commend your opposition to Duluth Model, and I mean that sincerely. We need more passion for rights, and that means everyone's. We are losing them.
1
Innocent of what? If he abused her, the article she wrote is not defamation, it is free speech. Why isn't he exercising his own First Amendment rights and writing his own article? He is suing instead, to punish her for her speech. Defamation cases aren't about who was worse. Even bad people have free speech. By the way, Depp already sued and lost a better defamation case in UK, and lost a movie deal after that.
1
@emiliag7858 He lost a deal after he lost his first defamation case against The Sun in the UK -- a much better case.
1
@emiliag7858 I saw through Russiagate and MeToo. Why don't you see through this? I know mobs when I see them. The frequency with which new ones are cropping up is disturbing. They cannot be predicted.
1
It's another mob, and you haven't joined it. These are like cults. I'm worried about all the mobbing. It never seems to stop any more.
1
This isn't about MeToo, it's about the First Amendment -- every defamation case is about whether speech is protected, or can be silenced and punished. That's where to begin every analysis of a defamation case.
1
@Mac Thomas No, she's not. She'll be sued every time she does. Did you read the article?
1
@SeeHang You do need to read the op ed to determine whether it was about Depp and to determine whether it states falsehoods about Depp. Not whether Heard in general lies a lot, but whether the article is false. The law is funny like that. I understand the frustration. We should just stone her.
1
@macthomas8899 You obviously don't know anything, and consider it your sacred birthright not to learn. The First Amendment protects you anyway. Say. I bet you didn't know that.
1
@macthomas8899 Oh. No. I'm being Rude. I'll never live it down. Forgive me for interrupting you.
1
@macthomas8899 Show me where I said I had a law degree. I said so in a different thread, where another genius said I was unqualified to criticise, or even comment on, the Uvalde police response!
1
Anyone who sees themselves in this case . . . Well, I just don't get it. How?
1
Did you read her article? That's what the case is about. Whether the article is First Amendment-protected or whether Heard can be punished for it by having her assets seized and turned over to Depp. The article makes no specific allegations at all, talks more about her life before she met Depp, and says she never saw herself as a "victim." I bet you didn't read it.
1
I thought Americans believed that "the remedy for bad speech is more speech." I thought Americans didn't approve of show trials.
1
Thank you
1
The Clintons and Biden did that. Heard didn't get the memo.
1