(frozen comment) Re: da

(Anonymous) 2022-05-19 10:12 pm (UTC)(link)
idk anon, i've watched a lot of the trial and i don't think it necessarily sets a good precedent for abusers. johnny depp cat lady stans are pretending he's winning because amber heard doesn't look good, but if you ignore their shrieking, johnny doesn't look good either, and - maybe more importantly - this has forced a number of related people to admit that they did a lot of fucked up shit on camera, in a trial, legally. imo if there's fallout beyond both of them not getting any more work and a few copycat cases, it'll be that friends/family of famous people will realize that they don't have the same relative immunity that famous actors do, and might actually have to stop enabling them in case it ever goes to court and gets livestreamed for some shithead actor/musician's humiliation fetish.

(frozen comment) Re: da

(Anonymous) 2022-05-19 10:18 pm (UTC)(link)
+1

the whole thing is definitely going to make things way shittier and more difficult for victims of abuse. it's already hard enough and then you have shitheads saying "I believe survivors" and then posting unhinged videos about this trial

guarantee there are lots of women out there watching this happen and deciding not to go to trial or to talk about their abuse because they don't want to be treated like that

(frozen comment) Re: da

(Anonymous) 2022-05-19 10:22 pm (UTC)(link)
johnny doesn't look great but amber looks infinitely worse and that's what people are going to remember at the end of the day

he's probably not going to win the defamation case anyway, but in the court of public opinion, amber (deservedly) lost

(frozen comment) Re: da

(Anonymous) 2022-05-19 10:24 pm (UTC)(link)
that doesn't mean the man legally declared a wife beater three times over won, anon.