What the Depp Defamation Ruling Means for Survivors
For weeks this spring, the news cycle was fixated on a defamation lawsuit that Johnny Depp brought against Amber Heard following their divorce in 2017 and a subsequent op-ed that Heard wrote in The Washington Post the next year about her unnamed abuser. Heard’s piece was less about her personal experience and more about abuse on a larger scale, and ways that policy changes could improve conditions for people of marginalized genders in the wake of the #MeToo movement. The goal of Heard’s op-ed was to strengthen support for survivors. The trial and its response is a stark example of just how difficult that support can be to find.
The charges of this very public trial did not outright accuse either party of abuse. The charges brought by Depp were three counts of defamation and false statements that injure one’s reputation. Heard filed a countersuit against Depp for coordinated online harassment. Lawyers for Depp argued that it was clear the op-ed was about him and that she fabricated accusations to further her career, while Heard’s team argued that the allegations had not affected his career and that the op-ed should be protected under her right to freedom of speech.
According to The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), “abuse is about an imbalance of power and control. In an unhealthy or abusive relationship, there may be unhealthy behaviors from both/all partners, but in an abusive relationship, one person tends to have more control than the other.” Johnny Depp established his career successfully in the 1980s, the same decade that Heard was born in. Both his long standing career and his age are factors in the power dynamics at play in this situation as illustrated in how the case garnered attention outside of the courtroom and spread to communities across the internet.
This trial was streamed live and televised by numerous outlets and content was constantly added across social media platforms, to the extent that seeing memes or hashtags was unavoidable throughout the course of the trial. Much of the content was mocking or derogatory against Amber Heard. Videos of her testifying were made into memes and TikTok sounds with the intent to make her case seem less viable. Some posts went as far as to imply that Heard deserved to die, while others made compilations of “jokes” that Depp made on the stand. Ben Shapiro’s news outlet, The Daily Wire, even spent thousands of dollars promoting their one-sided articles on the case on Facebook, a platform already noted for its tendency to promote a certain agenda. A study published in the weeks after the trial found “one of the worst cases of platform manipulation and flagrant abuse from a group of Twitter accounts” against Heard and her vocal supporters on the site. This fosters a hostile online environment for other survivors. The jury for the trial was also not sequestered throughout the proceedings, meaning that they could have been exposed to these biased views while making their decision.
Anyone of any gender can be a victim of abuse. Women are five times more likely than men to face intimate partner violence. People in the LGBTQ community are also more likely to face abuse than those who are cis/heteroseuxal. Studies have found that the main motivator when women use force is self-defense, and often women or other marginalized folks do not have access to resources to get help and in fact encounter social barriers to doing so.
The results of this trial will likely have a lasting effect on survivors of domestic violence and their right to speak up in the future. Domestic violence is already an under-reported crime, and witnessing the way Heard was spoken about online will likely sway folks from coming forward about their own experiences. Seeing so many Depp fans online rushing to defend a man they’ve never met might predict potential reactions from friends or family members when someone they do know is accused of harm. Survivors may see that even if they have texts, photos, videos, and witnesses to their pain, they will be mocked and disbelieved when coming forward with their stories. Many survivors prefer not to be named when talking about their experiences, and the fear of being forced to go to trial (that could then be televised) could also be a deterrent. The ruling also creates a dangerous precedent for legal and monetary consequences for advocating for oneself and other survivors, even if the accused is not named.
Additionally, perpetrators of violence may view this ruling as an invitation to take legal action in their own cases. Marilyn Manson, a friend of Depp and another high-profile man accused of domestic violence, has recently filed a defamation case against his accuser. Depp’s fans have already begun to rally around Manson. These higher-profile suits could embolden perpetrators — even those who are not famous — to sue a survivor for saying something about an assault, even when they are not named directly.
Not only does it pave the way for future legal action against folks who come forward, but could also open them up for further attacks or dismissal of their experiences. The public spectacle and sensationalism of the Depp/Heard case will undoubtedly have both legal and personal effects on survivors for years to come.
