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 "Amber Heard WEAPONIZES Woke ACLU For PR Puff Piece: Emily Jashinsky" video.

@sharlagardner thank you
3
@bullmoose5574 Neither Ryan nor Emily especially seem to know how to report on a court case accurately.
2
I can tell you why: Depp already sued The Sun for defamation in the UK on the same material facts, and lost. In the US, defamation suits necessarily implicate the First Amendment, and make speech that would normally be protected, and is presumed to be protected, actionable in court. You may not find that answer satisfactory, which is fine, but Emily seems not to understand what happened. Her time line is totally confused. Depp keeps pursuing these cases to punish Heard's speech. He's getting ALL the process he's due.
2
A defamation case isn't about who was worse. It is about whether speech or writing, which is presumed to be First Amendment-protected, is false and defamatory, and should give rise to damages. Making it about "who was worse" is a shell game. It's not about that at all. Emily misrepresents this case. Depp isn't being deprived of "due process." No one has to check with a court before writing their story.
1
@bullmoose5574 How so, exactly? "Due process" is an issue in Title IX, and a huge one. I don't think the ACLU should have gotten involved in helping Heard write an article, nor do I think they should be doing much of what they have been doing since Nadine Strossen left the helm. But her analysis concerning why is entirely off. This is a First Amendment issue.
1
@bullmoose5574 Why did she keep repeating that the ACLU put their thumb on the scale, and some blather about "due process?" The thumb on what scale?
1
@bullmoose5574 Public opinion and due process would be related, how? Nice trick, trying to identify me with Ryan. His response was poor.
1
@bullmoose5574 I already said I disagreed with what the ACLU did, but that has nothing to do with Emily's nonsense and misrepresentation of basic civil liberties.
1
@Utubo88 I wonder what Nadine Strossen thinks about what the ACLU did, and is doing.
1
@chococat746 I agree with you about the ACLU. Depp never sued on the NDA itself, and I don't know why that is. (I wonder if the ACLU advised her it was unenforceable, and why that would be?) The standard for proving defamation is entirely different from the standard for breach of contract. That this was a relitigation of their divorce, not a defamation case, should be obvious, and the result is absurd. If she was abused at all, even if she was the worse one of the pair, she had the right to publish that article. It was substantively true. Abusers have First Amendment rights. Even murderers do. As for Depp, being liable for his lawyer's speech for one cent, much less throw in a couple of million, is mind-boggling. Did Heard prove Depp and the lawyer conspired to float a phony story? And even then. If Depp told him the story, it's confidential. If the lawyer floated it himself after finding out it was weak and could not be presented in court, then he should be personally liable, not Depp. Depp has the right to share anything with his lawyer, anything he thought was true, or suspected, or believed, or even felt, or his pure speculation without proof, etc., and expect his interests to be protected.
1
It never made sense for men to automatically lose work over abuse allegations. Suppose they owed temporary alimony, health insurance payments for their ex-spouse, or child support? This whole episode of MeToo is bizarre. But how Depp became anyone's poster boy I'll never understand.
1
You can write an article with assistance and claim credit. It's done all the time. I object to the press never admitting it. See Jimmy Dore lately, on some really important examples.
1
If she was abused, she has a First Amendment right to speak or write about it --- even if she was worse than he was. Even bad people have First Amendment rights. Even criminals do. Ask yourself: why is he pursuing this defamation case, after losing a stronger defamation case in the UK on the same basic facts? Why doesn't he write his own essay? "The remedy for bad speech is more speech." I wonder how many people know this is really a First Amendment case, and not an abuse case? I bet hardly anyone.
1
@timwhite5562 I suggest you look up defamation, and something called "New York Times malice." EVERY defamation case implicates the First Amendment. If you lose, the state sends the sheriff to your house to seize your assets, because of your speech. I'm licensed in California. I do know what I'm talking about, and I lament the complete absence of civics education.
1
@timwhite5562 When you have the good fortune to run across someone who actually knows something, and won't abuse your intelligence the way the media does, why don't you investigate what they've said? Why do you imagine they're wrong? I have never once done that. If I were in your place, I'd have checked out Nolo or Cornell's website.
1
@timwhite5562 What do you think happens if you are judged liable for, say, a million dollars? Let's say seizure of your bank accounts is insufficient. Let's say you own fine art and jewelry. The point is, the STATE enforces the judgment, by TAKING your property, which it cannot do if your speech is protected by the First Amendment. Learn something. Get your head out of bad movies. I won't respond again.
1
@timwhite5562 Yes. Speech or writing is PRESUMED to be protected under the First Amendment, and must be PROVED not to be, and the burden of proof is always on the plaintiff, never on the defendant, and it is weighty. You have to read Supreme Court cases or legitimate summaries of law, not stray soundbites. "Exception" is incorrect terminology. No one who practices in the area ever uses it.
1
@timwhite5562 You're right to doubt my credentials. I'm talking to you. Whose fault is that?
1
@timwhite5562 Whoosh
1
@timwhite5562 A real lawyer shouldn't talk to you, absolutely right.
1
@timwhite5562 Blocked, btw. Should have done that after your first whiney, envious retort.
1
@brantkim I don't agree with this analysis. The court is an arm of the state, and the court will not find someone liable and seize their assets on account of their speech unless the plaintiff meets a heavy burden of proof. Speech is presumed to be First Amendment-protected and must be proved otherwise. There are a number of elements in that tort, and all of them are strict. Among other things, the speech must be false. Not just incomplete, not just misleading, and not an opinion but an assertion of fact. That's why this whole argument about "who was worse" that you see being played out is a total diversion. If he abused her, the article isn't false. That's true even if the public thinks she was worse. That's true even if she was worse. That's true even if she isn't generally a credible person, or a nice person, or a good person. I don't misunderstand it. Your cliche about yelling fire suggests you haven't read much on the subject. In any case, New York Times malice may play a role in the standard given to the jury. The instructions will be interesting.
1
@brantkim The case that phrase about yelling fire in a crowded theatre came from was overturned a long time ago, by the way. A notorious case.
1
@brantkim I didn't realize what thread this was. I'm not interested in engaging. Did Emily so much as mention the First Amendment? No, huh? Lord are you all easily led.
1
@brantkim 1. You are quoting from the same case that was overturned in the last century. "Clear and present danger." Ironic. 2. The burden of proof is on Depp at all times. He has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (which means "more likely than not") that Heard's article was false. She does not have to prove truth. If the jury is unsure, she wins. 3. I'm not engaging further. Try reading. It's fun. Educational, too.
1
@brantkim IOW, blocking you, too.
1
@timwhite5562 blocked and reported
1
@marctully228 I report people for personal bullying, which is against TOS. But I should stay off, it's not worth my time.
1
@marctully228 How many facts do you get wrong before breakfast? Why have the biggest military in human history if you can't even have your own facts? 🤔
1
I'm not sure what you're saying. Depp did sue for defamation in the UK, where there is no First Amendment, and lost. In the US, defamation suits necessarily implicate the First Amendment. Defamation takes what would normally be protected speech and makes it actionable. So, at least for that reason, the ACLU has an interest. You may not find that answer satisfactory, but Emily seems not to understand what happened.
1
@willcurley9140 You missed the point. A defamation case is not about who was worse. It is about whether what was said was false and defamatory. It is about speech or writing, not about persons. No one has to have the prior approval of a court in order to tell their story. Not even a murderer. Never mind. I already knew we don't have a First Amendment. Um, that (and not "due process," whatever that is supposed to mean) is what is at stake in defamation.
1
@willcurley9140 Your emotions got the better of you, and Depp has duped people into seeing him as The Victim. He is the one bringing these suits, and orchestrating this very expensive show. This won't help poor people, I can assure you. Not one iota.
1
@willcurley9140 Whose guilt? No one is adjudicated as "guilty" in a civil suit. I'm not following because you're not logical or responsive.
1
@willcurley9140 Are you suggesting a person must be found guilty of some crime involving abuse before anyone is allowed to say, and publish, that they were abused by that person? The First Amendment gives everyone the right to tell their story. There's nowhere you need to go for prior approval.
1
Due process isn't implicated. By suing Heard for defamation, Depp is asserting that her speech should not have First Amendment protection. That is at the heart of every defamation claim. Emily doesn't know the law. That simple.
1
@jamienelson3470 This is exactly what I don't understand. Depp is the last person to be a poster boy. MeToo was killed off by Biden and the Clintons in 2020, for obvious reasons. Labelling something "woke" is just telling you "sic 'em," which is more of the same but targetting the opposite side. This case will not make life safer or better for anyone, I can assure you. If it is true that he abused her, then her article is not defamatory. Even if she was worse, even if she is worse, even if she's a Terrible Person. They don't weigh the equities in defamation. It's that simple.
1
@jamienelson3470 This is no different from the mob that went after Eric Clapton, or Brian Eno, or Brian Laundrie's parents, or the unvaccinated, or all Russians, including Russian musicians on record for opposing Putin and Russian-bred cats banned from cat shows. This is hysteria redux. It's not a balance. It's putting a deeply disordered drug addict on a pedestal for no reason, and the people who did this will be embarrassed after this bubble pops. She's a kid compared to him, she could be his kid. That alone should make you pause at least.
1
Easy. It's a defamation case. It is about whether an article is false, not whether the person who signed it is "fake" or "toxic." Even fake, toxic people have free speech rights. Even murderers do.
1
@SimplestUsername Reasonable doubt isn't the standard in civil cases. It is, however, in perjury, which is exactly why Depp is suing rather than writing his own article. He can say horrible things about Heard, and never face a perjury allegation if he believes what he's saying, and never be sued for his testimony even if it is false, because testimony is immune from a defamation claim. Now do you get it? Is it starting to get clearer?
1
@SimplestUsername This little show is as dirty as it gets.
1
@Physics072 Exactly. The media has no reason to tell you the truth, they are profitting from this obsession, so someone who actually lays it out accurately will sound weird. Of course I'm saying something different from what you're being told. Check out Glenn Greenwald's latest videos on that. Too bad they shadow links.
1
@ardendragoon Maybe I need to make it clearer to you: if he abused her, then her ARTICLE is not false, much less defamatory, and hence it is free speech. That's true even if she was worse. Bad People have First Amendment rights. That's the issue. Not who was worse. Who was worse is for family court, or some other venue. Defamation trials are about speech. (You see progressives defending free speech lately? Not so much, lately.)
1
@maineman2317 UK does not have a FIrst Amendment. That fact alone makes it easier to sue for libel. In the US, an article is presumed to be First Amendment-protected, and must be proven to be false and defamatory. Not misleading -- false.
1
@maineman2317 I would not repeat Depp's talking points without reading the trial transcript, or asking why he did not appeal if he was the victim of blatant judicial misconduct. This has become another cult.
1
@maineman2317 No. I was talking about accusations against the UK judge. Why?
1
@maineman2317 This is no different from the mob that went after Eric Clapton, or Brian Eno, or Brian Laundrie's parents, or the unvaccinated, or all Russians, including Russian musicians on record for opposing Putin and Russian-bred cats banned from cat shows. You should worry about all the new cults popping up -- and MeToo certainly falls into that category, but Depp does not have the cure. Not a good sign.
1
@maineman2317 No. I mean I think you're all nuts. And Depp controlled that suit. He could have withdrawn it. A plaintiff always can. Why submit to that jurisdiction, where you cannot hope to receive an unbiased hearing?
1
@maineman2317 Did you find the UK appellate court documents? I did.
1
@taylorlibby7642 Amen. Another friggin' cult. New ones are coming faster and faster. Remember Gabby Petito and Brian Laundrie? We were supposed to ignore the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, "just this once" . . . "for Gabby."
1
Yeah, and Depp cannot be sued by Heard for defamation even if that was false. His testimony is immune from civil suit, and he'll never be charged with perjury if he actually believed she did it.
1
Depp already lost once. Seems that a UK court didn't consider them false, and they have no First Amendment. It is easier to win a defamation case in UK than here.
1
I can tell you why: Depp had already sued The Sun for defamation in the UK on the same material facts, and lost. In the US, defamation suits necessarily implicate the First Amendment. That is why the ACLU does have an interest in it. You may not find that answer satisfactory, which is fine, but you seem not to understand what happened.
1
Depp is the one vying for Victim laurels.
1
Actually, she doesn't, either, but . . . It's pointless.
1
@kbean5338 The divorce case has nothing to do with this suit. But it helps Depp if everyone mixes them up, so . . .
1
@kbean5338 You mentioned $7m.
1
Did Depp lose work before losing his case in UK?
1
Nonsense. No one, man or woman, has to go to the police for permission to tell their story in the press, or to anyone. Consult the Bill of Rights, Amendment I. You are pleading for the speech to be ignored unless it has certain indicia of proof. No employer should act on it, no school, and certainly no law enforcement or other government. That's different.
1
Besides, she did make a police report.
1
@GFTCNJ Agree 💯about the media. Absolutely. Jimmy Dore has been on fire about that lately.
1
@GFTCNJ The court granted her request for a temporary restraining order. I wonder how that happened.
1
@GFTCNJ Can I ask you something? Do you honestly imagine this was one-sided? She's making it all up? And his massive drug and alcohol abuse has no bearing on the case? It doesn't affect his memory, for example? What marriage with an addict is like that, all in his favor? People talk about bias, well . . . LAPD are notorious for their bias in favor of major stars. Read up on Dennis Wilson of the Beach Boys and his crowd. You can find the details in accounts of Charles Manson.
1
@GFTCNJ This is no different from the mob that went after Eric Clapton, or Brian Eno, or Brian Laundrie's parents, or the unvaccinated, or all Russians, including Russian musicians on record for opposing Putin and Russian-bred cats banned from cat shows.
1
That's not what the case is about. Depp is suing Heard for defamation. Her speech is presumed to be protected by the First Amendment and has to be proved not to be. Which person was worse, or is worse, has nothing to do with the basic question. The First Amendment has no equity exception. If the speech is not false, it is not defamation, even if she was abusive, too -- even if she was worse. The only way Depp can win is to confuse the jury about the basic question, and make them feel sorry for him.
1
@tisbonus If he abused her as well, the text she published isn't defamation -- even if she was the worse offender. If Depp was purely a victim, merely trying to defend himself, then it is. If you think the law of defamation is something else, then Depp has confused you. Defamation is about speech or writing, not about who was worse. It does not balance the equities, since he was free to write his story, too. Even the worst people have that right. Even murderers do. (BTW, did you ever read the article?)
1
@tisbonus She is perfectly within her rights to state that the LAPD, or any witness, is lying, if she believes that to be the case. For LAPD to cover for the hotter commodity in Hollywood is a long-standing practice.
1
@tisbonus I'm not "trolling." If you only want people who agree with you, don't engage. The psychologist they went to together for marital counseling said it was mutual.
1
@tisbonus So you didn't read the article at issue. 🤔
1
@tisbonus What assumption without evidence? What the law of defamation is? That's not an assumption. Or that LAPD have a horrible reputation, and a long-standing one? That happens to be true. You mention them as though you believed their testimony was dispositive.
1
@tisbonus The aggressor? The only one?
1
@tisbonus What do you think is the issue in a defamation case? It is whether that op-ed, which Depp attached to his complaint, is false. Not incomplete, not biased, not misleading: literally false. I won't answer again. Look up Nolo, look up the Cornell Law School website, read the actual complaint and answer. Look up the "New York Times malice" standard (which makes it really hard for Depp to win -- if they apply it -- and even I have misgivings about applying it in this case). Or don't. I still cannot get it through my head the degree of ignorance and lack of basic, independent thinking I see. What do you get out of joining the crowd? What do you think this show with two disordered millionaires is doing for you? I can tell you: nothing good. The media has you on a string. I don't even want to know what you think this case is about, or why you think the tapes don't show mutual abuse -- in which case the article is not false under the law of defamation. It is free speech. If Heard is found liable, it will be reversed on appeal. As for calling me a troll twice: nope, you are intrigued. I think you might want to know whether the MSM is misleading us -- AGAIN. Take a wild guess.
1
@tisbonus Certainly there is evidence he hit her and abused her emotionally while they were living together as a couple. You seem to think it doesn't count. Okay, so you have a problem. Well, it's not my problem. Tootles.
1
@tisbonus And her sister is lying too. Everyone but Depp is lying.
1
🤣 that was good
1
She misrepresented this case. It's a First Amendment case, not a due process case. There is no way in which Heard, or anyone, deprived Depp of due process. Her time line is botched as well, which (in law) actually matters. When someone (Depp) sues another person (Heard) for defamation, they are asserting that the First Amendment does not protect that person's (Heard's) speech.
1
I understand that Emily is not a lawyer, but I've never seen basic rights trashed like they've been trashed over the past two years, since the COVID lockdowns, and we just have more and more little mobs forming, as if no one sees through it. Her pretending to be defending "due process" is rich. Nope, she's arguing against the First Amendment.
1
@erikaoliver2591 This is the misunderstanding. If they were both abusive, her article is true, hence protected speech. Consider this: a man abuses his wife, and goes to prison for it. He writes a memoir, telling the history of their relationship, and all about the abuse he suffered at her hands, both physical and psychological, including some strange things she did to goad him. He tells the truth -- the facts are all accurate, and his opinions are his own. Free speech? YES, it IS. I was also opposed to suspending the Fifth Amendment to make Brian Laundrie's parents talk, "just this once . . . for Gabby." Depp decided to sue to be able to say these things about Heard without being vulnerable to suit himself. His testimony is immune from suit. Neat trick.
1
@erikaoliver2591 You don't have to be the victim to exercise your First Amendment rights. You could be giving worse than you got. Her article in fact states that she never saw herself as a victim. Think again about what you just said. ". . . her first amendment rights as the victim" Is that where we are? And for what? Druggie millionaires?
1
All the reporting on this case has deflected from the core of the issue. This is a defamation case, for starters, which is about whether speech or writing that is presumed to be First Amendment-protected can be proven to be false and defamatory, and thus subject to civil liability (i.e., which means the sheriff gets to seize your assets and hand them over to the plaintiff). If you thought the case was about who was worse, or more abusive, well . . . Yup. They deflected you from the sole issue. As for due process, Depp was never deprived of that. He lost no work because of the article he's suing about. He lost work after he lost his UK case.
1
Wait, is Depp an Alpha? Oh please god, . . .
1
You are just reacting to the label "wokeness." EVERY defamation case in the US asserts that the party being sued had no First Amendment right to say what they said. That is Depp's claim: that Heard had no right to speak. Remember how the mob wanted police to make Brian Laundrie's parents talk? We'll ignore the Fifth Amendment, "just this once . . . because Gabby!!"
1