DEPP V HEARD
Regardless of being the kind of individual who doesn’t follow celebrity scandals, you will have undoubtedly heard about the most publicised case of 2022, Depp v Heard. This was a gruelling multi-million dollar defamation case between Pirates of the Caribbean actor Johnny Depp and Aquaman actress Amber Heard (BBC). In order to better understand the ruling of the case and what it warrants for similar future cases, in particular its effect on the #MeToo Movement, we must first unpack the legality of defamation and explore the uncanny role that social media plays in defamation trials.
DEFAMATION
Defamation is a tort that protects third parties’ reputations from harmful statements. A common misconception is that the winner of a defamation trial is innocent. However, being the ‘victor’ merely means that the statement made about them was untrue and harmful. Defamation is a manifestation of the clash between everyone’s right to private life and freedom of expression, as stipulated by Article 8 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Many argue that individuals should be able to freely express their opinions. LSE human rights law professor Gearty pushes that restrictions on free speech are the ‘most serious conceivable breach of civil liberties’ (Public Law Chp20). However, many would argue that individuals should still have the right to protect their reputation from being tarnished and their personal information being exposed. As a result, the UK’s Defamation Act 2013 was published, creating a balancing act between the two aforementioned ECHR rights.
The Defamation Act lists the factors that must be met in a UK defamation case. The statement must 1) refer to the claimant, 2) be published, and 3) be defamatory in being likely to cause serious harm to the claimant’s reputation. Additionally, the defendant must not be 1) truthful, 2) an honest opinion, 3) in public interest, or 4) be of absolute privilege.
There are three main differences between bringing a defamation case in the UK and US. The case would be presented before a judge in the UK compared to a jury in the US, the US is more stringent towards defamation claims compared to the UK’s claimant-friendly defamation laws, and the burden of proof in the US is on the defendant where in the UK is on the claimant (Huffpost).
CASE
In 2020, Depp lost a UK lawsuit against the Sun Newspaper regarding the Sun calling him a “wife-beater” (The Sun). However, why did Depp lose his defamation case in the UK but won in the US? Stephens, a media lawyer, argues that he lost this case as it was before a judge who recognised Depp’s strategy of attacking Heard’s character (“deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender” tactic) and dismissed evidence that did not address if Depp committed the assault or not (BBC).
Concerning the 2022 US case, Depp brought a USD$50 million defamation lawsuit against Heard for her op-ed regarding sexual violence, despite never mentioning “Depp”. Opposingly, Heard counter-sued Depp for USD$100 million, for defaming her with a “smear campaign” calling her a liar (BBC).
The Role of SOCIAL MEDIA
The jury unanimously ruled in favour of Depp, declaring the statements made about him were incorrect and Heard had engaged in defamatory implication by leaving gaps in her story to harm Depp. However, Heard won one of her three claims against Depp as his former attorney, Adam Waldman, accused Heard of making up abuse allegations (Find Law). Heard lost the other claims, regarding Depp's accusations being intended to hurt her reputation, as she appeared uncredible by exaggerating, and lacked Depp's soft power of being loved by all (Insider). Depp was awarded USD$10.4 million in damages, whilst Heard received USD$2 million (Find Law).
Despite Depp winning the trial, the verdict should not be viewed at face value. The verdict does not mean Depp is completely innocent, it simply means that the statements made about him were false and incriminating. Indeed, the texts from Depp, describing his rape and murder fantasies and audios of Depp verbally abusing Heard should not be brushed under the rug simply because of the verdict. Hence, media law expert Youm describes the case as not fully being about uncovering the truth but more of a grudge match (Poynter).
So, why did the jury rule in favour of Depp? Was it a fair trial? Many questions were raised about whether the social media surrounding the case caused bias. Memes, court videos, and opinions of the case bombarded TikTok, Instagram, tabloids, and dinner table conversations. One popular example was memes about Heard leaving faeces on Depp’s beds. Hess wrote in the Times, “I did not follow the defamation trial… it followed me” (NY Times). BBC revealed that the jury was allowed to keep their phones and were not sequestered; the only thing standing between the jury and the internet fire was the court advising them not to read the online articles. (BBC). At the same time, LA lawyer Rahmani also mentions how Heard damaged her own credibility on the stand by lying about “irrelevant facts”, inconsistencies between her comments and evidence, tearless-crying and more. This all caused the jury to see Heard as “not deserving of empathy” (USA Today).
THE VERDICT’S CHILLING EFFECT ON ABUSE VICTIMS
What does this case entail for domestic abuse victims and the #MeToo Movement? Every minute in the US, almost 20 people are physically abused by their partner (NCADV). After watching how Heard became a digital punching bag just for speaking out about her alleged abuse, hundreds of domestic abuse victims are withdrawing their court cases or statements made to the press. (Poynter). They have concluded from this trial that they will be ostracised and harassed if they share their experiences (New Yorker). Depp v Heard caused a massive ‘cultural regression’ from the slow progress towards giving victims a safe space to expose their abuser through campaigns such as the #MeToo Movement (Mashable).
While this case does not set a legal precedent, experts have expressed concerns that the case may be used as an exemplar for others accused of violent conduct. For example, Depp’s friend Marilyn Manson recently sued actress Evan Rachel Wood for defamation in her claims that he abused her while they were dating (Poynter).
CONCLUSION
This case exemplifies that the case does not end at the verdict. Instead, the significance of the case is what happens as a result of that ruling: who bears the burden, its social ramifications, its legacy on future cases, and its impact on protecting vulnerable people.
