Libel and Slander

Subterms

    Latest story

    100 Shares126 Views

    Schneider Sues ‘Quiet on Set’ Producers for Defamation

    by

    In the suit, lawyers for the former Nickelodeon producer called the documentary a “hit job” that had falsely painted him as a “child sexual abuser.”The television producer Dan Schneider filed a defamation lawsuit on Wednesday against the creators of the documentary series “Quiet on Set,” which aired accounts of sexual abuse and other inappropriate behavior on sets at Nickelodeon, where Schneider was once a star creator of content.The five-episode series, “Quiet on Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV,” included interviews from former employees who denounced Schneider as a boss and objected to sexualized humor in his shows, leading him to release a video in March in which he apologized for some of his behavior on the job, such as soliciting massages on set from staff members.But the show also focused on Nickelodeon employees who had been convicted of child sex crimes — including Brian Peck, a dialogue coach for Nickelodeon, who was sentenced to prison for sexually abusing the “Drake & Josh” star Jared Drake Bell.Schneider’s lawsuit accuses the documentary of improperly conflating him with those who had been convicted of abusing children and took issue with segments of the series that his lawyers said “falsely and repeatedly state or imply that Schneider is a child sexual abuser.”“Schneider will be the first to admit that some of what they said is true,” the lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, said of the filmmakers. “At times, he was blind to the pain that some of his behavior caused certain colleagues, subordinates and cast members. He will regret and atone for this behavior the rest of his life. But one thing he is not — and the one thing that will forever mar his reputation and career both past and present — is a child sexual abuser.”Schneider declined to be interviewed for the series, instead issuing a statement that was included in the documentary, in which he denied various accusations leveled against him and said that “everything that happened on the shows I ran was carefully scrutinized by dozens of involved adults.”The listed defendants in the case include Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns Max, where the series was streamed; Maxine Productions and Sony Pictures Television, which produced it; and Mary Robertson and Emma Schwartz, who directed the series. None of the parties immediately responded to a request for comment.Calling the series a “hit job,” the lawsuit said that in several instances viewers were led to inaccurately infer that he was a child sexual abuser, including in the trailer, in which a series of photos and video clips of Schneider are followed by the advertisement of a “true crime event.”“The harm to Schneider’s reputation, career, and business, to say nothing of his own overwhelming emotional distress, cannot be understated,” said the lawsuit, which seeks an unspecified amount of damages.The lawsuit said that Schneider’s legal representatives had sent a letter demanding that the series “not include any statements that allege or imply that Schneider engaged in any criminal or sexual misconduct,” and that the defendants’ lawyer responded that there were no “statements” that defamed him.Starting in the 1990s, Schneider created, scripted and produced a string of hits for Nickelodeon including “All That,” “The Amanda Show,” “Drake & Josh” and “Zoey 101.”But in the spring of 2018, Schneider and Nickelodeon suddenly issued a joint statement announcing their separation. Almost overnight, he largely disappeared from public view.In 2021, The New York Times reported that before that announcement, ViacomCBS, the parent company of Nickelodeon, had investigated Schneider and found that many people he worked with viewed him as verbally abusive. The company’s review found no evidence of sexual misconduct by Schneider.The recent documentary series included information about how Schneider and Nickelodeon parted ways, and reported that the investigation into his conduct “did not find any evidence of inappropriate sexual behavior” or “inappropriate relationships with children.”The series was a ratings hit and stirred up conversations about the appropriateness of some of the material on children’s television. Critics said the shows contained barely veiled sexual innuendo, and Schneider, in his apology video, said he would be willing to cut out parts of the show that were upsetting to people, years after they first aired. At the same time, though, he suggested that the criticism came from adults looking at jokes written for children “through their lens.” More

    More stories

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Television

      Leah Remini, Vocal Scientology Critic, Files Suit Against Church

      by

      The lawsuit, which alleges a pattern of harassment and defamation, is a culmination of a decade of criticism of Scientology by Ms. Remini, an actress, since she broke publicly with the church.The actress Leah Remini, a former longtime member of the Church of Scientology who has been highly critical of the organization since leaving it in 2013, filed suit against the church this week seeking to end what she said were the “mob-style tactics” it had used to harass and defame her.The lawsuit, which was filed on Wednesday in Superior Court in Los Angeles County, lists the church as a defendant along with its Religious Technology Center, which the church describes as an organization formed to preserve, maintain and protect the religion; and David Miscavige, the chairman of the center’s board and the leader of the church.“For 17 years, Scientology and David Miscavige have subjected me to what I believe to be psychological torture, defamation, surveillance, harassment, and intimidation, significantly impacting my life and career,” Ms. Remini said in a statement on social media announcing the lawsuit. “I believe I am not the first person targeted by Scientology and its operations, but I intend to be the last.”The lawsuit says that she has been “under constant threat and assault” as a result of her public departure from Scientology. She is seeking a jury trial and unspecified damages for economic and psychological harm.In a statement, the church called the lawsuit “ludicrous and the allegations pure lunacy,” and described the move as Ms. Remini’s “latest act of blatant harassment and attempt to prevent truthful free speech.”During her three-decade acting career, Ms. Remini, 53, has appeared in dozens of TV shows, most notably as Carrie Heffernan in nine seasons of the CBS sitcom “The King of Queens.”The lawsuit is a culmination of a decade of criticism of Scientology by Ms. Remini, who has used her platforms to expose what she and many other former members say are the darker sides of the church, including the disappearance from public view of her friend Shelly Miscavige, Mr. Miscavige’s wife.Ms. Remini published “Troublemaker: Surviving Hollywood and Scientology,” a book about her experiences, in 2015, and hosted and produced an Emmy Award-winning documentary TV series “Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath,” which ran for three seasons starting in 2016.The lawsuit details the decades that Ms. Remini spent in Scientology and the events that led to her departure after what she says was a yearslong period of abuse. When she was 8, she “effectively lost” her mother to Scientology, the lawsuit says. When she was 13, she was forced to join the Sea Organization, or Sea Org, the corps of members who keep the church running, the lawsuit said.She was forced to sign a billion-year contract, in keeping with the church’s belief that Scientologists are immortal, and to perform manual labor, study the teachings of the church’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard, and undergo training that included “verbally, physically, and sexually abusive” practices, the lawsuit says.Some of the allegations involved a process known as a “truth rundown” that is meant to erase a Scientologist’s memories and implant new ones. The lawsuit says that Ms. Remini was sent to a facility in Florida for a truth rundown and that, “after months of psychological torture,” she was “nearing the point of psychotic breakdown.”After reporting an abuse allegation at a Scientology studio in Riverside, Calif., she left the organization in 2013.Shortly after she left the church, Ms. Remini filed a missing persons report about Ms. Miscavige, who has not been seen in public since 2007, the lawsuit said. The Los Angeles Police Department closed that investigation in 2014, saying that detectives had “personally made contact” with Ms. Miscavige and her lawyer.The lawsuit said that Ms. Remini was designated a “suppressive person,” or someone who leaves the church and is deemed its enemy by seeking to damage the church or Scientologists. That could include reporting crimes committed by Scientologists to civil authorities, the lawsuit said.The lawsuit says that, in addition to physical stalking and harassment, the church and the other defendants had conducted a decade-long “mass coordinated social media effort” against Ms. Remini, using hundreds of Scientology-run websites and social media accounts “to spread false and malicious information about her.”“People who share what they’ve experienced in Scientology, and those who tell their stories and advocate for them,” Ms. Remini wrote on Twitter, “should be free to do so without fearing retaliation from a cult with tax exemption and billions in assets.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Theater

      The Enduring Appeal of ‘Wagatha,’ Now on Stage and Screen

      by

      A dramatization of the trial between the wives of two soccer stars is returning to the West End in London, joining TV shows, podcasts and documentaries about the high-profile spat.With its stage transformed into a green soccer pitch, “Vardy v. Rooney: The Wagatha Christie Trial” at Wyndham’s Theater in London last November promised its nearly sold-out audience a game, and the two women onstage were both trying to score a goal.But as two pundits ooh’ed and aah’ed from the sidelines, the actresses sparring were not playing soccer stars but the women married to them, caught at the center of an Instagram feud turned high-profile libel case that captured the British public’s attention last May and peeled back the curtain hiding the machinations of British celebrity and the glitzy world of English soccer.“I see it as a comedy of manners,” said Liv Hennessy, the writer of the play, which returns to the West End on Thursday at the Ambassadors Theater. “It’s a theatrical way for us to look at the way people behave in our current society.”The play is just one recent retelling of the real-life case that became known as the “Wagatha Christie” trial, in which Rebekah Vardy, the wife of the Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, sued Coleen Rooney, the wife of the former Manchester United star Wayne Rooney, for defamation. The catalyst: Rooney’s accusation, on Twitter, that Vardy had leaked her personal information to the British press.The wives and girlfriends of soccer players — commonly known in Britain by the acronym WAGs — have long been followed by tabloids, but Rooney’s post caused an online furor. Its escalation into the legal realm led to breathless coverage, drawing in powerhouse lawyers and unearthing revelations about both women’s personal lives.The legal side of the long-running saga came to an end last July, with the High Court ruling against Vardy, saying that the reputational damage from the scandal was not libel and ordering Vardy to pay almost all of Rooney’s legal costs, which amounted to about £1.7 million, or $1.9 million.But the case’s power as a story has lived on, with production companies, documentary makers, podcasters and journalists finding the unfolding trial and its cast of characters just too irresistible not to dissect, all helped by the availability of the weeklong case’s court transcripts.“It’s the old adage of: You can’t write this,” said Thomas Popay, the creative director of Chalkboard TV, which produced a two-part dramatization, “Vardy v. Rooney: A Courtroom Drama,” that aired on Channel 4 in Britain last December. “We literally didn’t. We took the transcripts and recreated them.”Alongside the West End play and Channel 4 show, offerings for followers of the feud include a BBC podcast called “It’s … Wagatha Christie” and the Discovery+ documentary “Vardy vs Rooney: The Wagatha Trial.” Rooney has signed a Disney+ deal for a three-part documentary looking at the events leading up to the trial, and the saga is reportedly being considered for a retelling as part of the series “A Very British Scandal.”Rebekah Vardy, left, lost her defamation case against Coleen Rooney, right, in London’s High Court last year. Rooney described how she concocted a sting operation to reveal the betrayer.Daniel Leal/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“All of us can relate to the idea of being betrayed — especially betrayed by someone who we trusted,” Popay said. “And on Vardy’s side — we can all relate to not being believed.”In her 2019 social media post, Rooney described how she concocted a sting operation to reveal the betrayer by posting false stories that were visible to a single account — Vardy’s — to test if they would turn up in The Sun, a London tabloid.The popularity of the post led to Rooney being nicknamed “Wagatha Christie” — a portmanteau of WAG and Agatha Christie, the mystery writer — for her detective work. Vardy quickly denied she was the leaker and sued Rooney for defaming her.“We are absolutely interested in people’s misfortunes and what goes on in celebrity lives,” said Adrian Bingham, a professor of modern British history at the University of Sheffield who has studied media and gender issues. The women’s involvement with the soccer world gave their dispute resonance with a wider audience, he added, while the legal case gave the non-tabloid media a legitimate reason to cover it. Producers of the adaptations say they have asked their own lawyers to look over scripts, lest they find themselves accused of defamation.The court transcript itself had moments and revelations that many say were ripe for re-enactment: a phone with key evidence in the form of WhatsApp messages, apparently lost to the bottom of the North Sea; lawyers in wigs formally reading out text messages from the women, some containing profanities; Vardy’s tears on the witness stand after cross-examination by David Sherborne, Rooney’s lawyer.“It was positively Shakespearean in terms of how it went down,” said Popay. “We decided the best thing to do and the most accurate thing to do was to completely recreate the trial by using the court transcripts verbatim.” His company’s show, which was commissioned in May during the trial and aired in December, drew 1.5 million viewers.In the Channel 4 show “Vardy v. Rooney: A Courtroom Drama,” Vardy is played by Natalia Tena, seen here arriving at court.Channel 4Hennessy, the writer of the West End play, also relied heavily on the court transcripts, but took liberties by leaning into the soccer world, structuring the play like a game itself. Reading the transcripts, she said she was struck by the humanity of the two women, who have both been criticized (Vardy has said that people made abusive threats toward her and her unborn baby following that fateful post, while the trial laid bare tensions in Rooney’s marriage and her experience growing up with fame).“It does ask how complicit we are in creating public figures, and tearing them down when they don’t meet our standards,” Hennessy said.Even at a rehearsal in late March, before the play’s official return, it was clear the trial continued to intrigue and perplex even the cast members. During a pivotal scene in which Rooney is grilled by Vardy’s lawyer on precisely why she made the fateful decision to share the feud with the world, the actors broke character to pose their own burning questions: Was that decision one of a calculating woman, or a woman at a breaking point? Why had she not privately confronted Vardy? And what did it feel like to live, as they imagined Rooney did, in a world where one’s image could become a public commodity?Though celebrity gossip can be easy to dismiss as frivolous, the two opponents in the trial were both women from working-class backgrounds who laid out one aspirational pathway for others like them, said Rebecca Twomey, an entertainment correspondent who has covered both women closely.“We like to put people on pedestals — and bring them down,” she said, adding that many people enjoyed a modern-day pantomime. “You might think they’re airhead WAGs, but these are two sharp, intelligent women.”Still, the enduring appeal of the high drama of “Wagatha Christie” is also simple, Professor Bingham said.“The reason people are telling it is not because it’s insightful,” he added. “It’s because it’s a great story — with great lines.” More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Movies

      Johnny Depp Film About Louis XV Will Open Cannes Film Festival

      by

      The inclusion of “Jeanne du Barry,” directed by Maïwenn, is Depp’s first public embrace by the film industry since he won a bitter defamation trial against his ex-wife Amber Heard.Johnny Depp’s first major film since winning a lurid and contentious defamation trial last year — a costume drama in which he plays King Louis XV of France — will open the Cannes Film Festival in May, the festival announced on Wednesday.Depp filmed the period drama, “Jeanne du Barry,” shortly after the trial, in which the jury found that his ex-wife Amber Heard had defamed him when she described herself in a 2018 op-ed in The Washington Post as a “public figure representing domestic abuse.” During six weeks of testimony, which riveted the nation, he and Heard battled over her allegations that he had physically and sexually abused her. Heard initially appealed the verdict, but then announced that she intended to settle the dispute.Since Depp’s victory in court, he has tiptoed back into the public eye, appearing in a fashion show backed by Rihanna and at the MTV Video Music Awards; he also started a TikTok account. But the Cannes premiere is the actor’s first public embrace by the film industry since the trial, where he denied Heard’s allegations of physical and sexual abuse and tried to portray her as the aggressor in the relationship.“Jeanne du Barry” is directed by and stars the French actress and filmmaker Maïwenn, who plays the title character, a working-class woman and courtesan who becomes the favorite of the king. Maïwenn’s film “Polisse” won the Jury Prize at Cannes in 2011.Her new film will premiere on May 16, after the festival’s opening ceremony, and will debut in French movie theaters on the same day. Fifteen months after its theatrical release, Netflix will stream the movie on its service only in France.Depp, 59, had also appealed a narrow part of the jury’s decision in the defamation case, in which they held him liable for a defamatory statement that his lawyer had made about Heard. His lawyers said last year that Heard had agreed to pay $1 million to end the case, far less than what the jury in Virginia had initially called on her to pay.His victory in the trial surprised some legal observers, because a judge in Britain had ruled in an earlier case that there was evidence that Depp had assaulted Heard. The British ruling came in a libel suit that Depp had filed after The Sun, a tabloid newspaper, called him a “wife beater” in a headline. The judge in that case ruled that the defendants had shown that what they published was “substantially true.”Nicole Sperling More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Movies

      Amber Heard Says She Has Decided to ‘Settle’ Johnny Depp Defamation Case

      by

      The long-running legal battle was heading for its next chapter in an appeals court, but Mr. Depp’s lawyers said Ms. Heard has agreed to pay $1 million to end it.The actress Amber Heard said on Monday that she did not plan to go forward with her appeal of the defamation case involving her ex-husband, Johnny Depp, writing in an Instagram post that she had decided to settle the long-running dispute following a defeat at trial earlier this year.In a statement, Benjamin Chew and Camille Vasquez, lawyers for Mr. Depp, said Ms. Heard agreed to pay $1 million to end the case — far less than the jury verdict requiring her to pay more than $8 million in damages.In June, the seven-person jury in Virginia found that Ms. Heard had defamed Mr. Depp when she described herself in a 2018 op-ed in The Washington Post as a “public figure representing domestic abuse.” The jury awarded Mr. Depp more than $10 million in damages, but it also found that Mr. Depp had defamed Ms. Heard through a comment made by his lawyer, awarding Ms. Heard $2 million.Both sides had appealed the parts of the case that each had lost, indicating a long and costly battle was coming in Virginia’s Court of Appeals.But Ms. Heard said on Monday that she did not wish to continue the case, citing a financial and psychological toll.Our Coverage of the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard TrialA trial between the formerly married actors became a fierce battleground over the truth about their relationship.What to Know: Johnny Depp and Amber Heard sued each other with competing defamation claims, amid mutual accusations of domestic abuse.The Verdict: The jury ruled that Mr. Depp was defamed by Ms. Heard in her op-ed, but also that she had been defamed by one of his lawyers.Possible Effects: Lawyers say that the outcome of the trial could embolden others accused of sexual abuse to try their luck with juries, marking a new era for the #MeToo movement.The Media’s Role: As the trial demonstrates, by sharing claims of sexual abuse the press assumes the risks that come with antagonizing the rich, powerful and litigious.“After a great deal of deliberation I have made a very difficult decision to settle the defamation case brought against me by my ex-husband in Virginia,” her post said.In their statement, Mr. Depp’s lawyers sought to counter any possible perception that the agreement was a victory for Ms. Heard, writing that the $1 million payment “reinforces Ms. Heard’s acknowledgment of the conclusion of the legal system’s rigorous pursuit for justice.”“We are pleased to formally close the door on this painful chapter for Mr. Depp, who made clear throughout this process that his priority was about bringing the truth to light,” the statement said. “The jury’s unanimous decision and the resulting judgment in Mr. Depp’s favor against Ms. Heard remain fully in place.”Mr. Depp’s lawyers said he planned to donate the payment to charity.Lawyers for Ms. Heard did not immediately respond to requests for comment.For weeks, the livestreamed trial became an internet preoccupation, with much of the vitriol targeting Ms. Heard, whose claims of domestic violence and sexual assault became the subject of memes and mockery. In her post, Ms. Heard indicated that the online abuse was a factor in her decision to not see her appeal through.“The vilification I have faced on social media is an amplified version of the ways in which women are re-victimised when they come forward,” the statement said. “I make this decision having lost faith in the American legal system, where my unprotected testimony served as entertainment and social media fodder.”She said in the post that the terms of the agreement did not restrict what she could say about the case.Mr. Depp has repeatedly denied abusing Ms. Heard, and throughout the trial, he portrayed her as the aggressor in the relationship.Mr. Depp and Ms. Heard have been locked in legal proceedings around the claims for years. In Britain, a judge had ruled that there was evidence that Mr. Depp had repeatedly assaulted Ms. Heard. That ruling came in a libel suit that Mr. Depp had filed after The Sun, a British tabloid newspaper, called him a “wife beater” in a headline. The judge in that case had ruled that the defendants had shown that what they published was “substantially true.”Ms. Heard said in her post that she was not willing to see the claims aired in a court again — a possible outcome if her appeal was to succeed.“I simply cannot go through that for a third time,” Ms. Heard said in her post, later writing, “I cannot afford to risk an impossible bill — one that is not just financial, but also psychological, physical and emotional.”Since Mr. Depp’s victory in Virginia, he has tiptoed back into the public eye, appearing in a fashion show backed by Rihanna and working on films.Ms. Heard has remained almost entirely out of the spotlight. In federal court, she has been battling her insurance company, which has been seeking to avoid responsibility for shouldering the costs of the jury verdict. It was not immediately clear whether the insurance company would take responsibility for the $1 million payment. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Television

      A Chess Champion Resolves Her ‘Queen’s Gambit’ Lawsuit Against Netflix

      by

      The fictional series had named Nona Gaprindashvili, a pioneering real-life chess champion, and falsely claimed she had “never faced men.” She sued for defamation.Lawyers for the pioneering chess champion Nona Gaprindashvili filed papers in federal court on Tuesday suggesting that they had settled her defamation lawsuit against Netflix over what they had described as a “devastating falsehood” about her in its fictional hit series “The Queen’s Gambit.”The agreement comes almost a year after Ms. Gaprindashvili, the first woman to be named a grandmaster, sued Netflix over a line in the final episode of the series that mentioned her by name and said, incorrectly, that she had “never faced men.” In fact, Ms. Gaprindashvili had played against many male champions over the course of her career, including before the episode in question took place.“An insulting experience” was how Ms. Gaprindashvili described her portrayal in the show in an interview last year with The New York Times.“I am pleased that the matter has been resolved,” said Alexander Rufus-Isaacs, a lawyer for Ms. Gaprindashvili. He provided no additional comment, and declined to say how the case had been resolved or whether any money had changed hands.In court documents filed in June, lawyers for Ms. Gaprindashvili and Netflix had said “parties are working with the Ninth Circuit mediator to explore settlement.”Netflix echoed Mr. Rufus-Isaacs’s statement, saying only that it too was “pleased the matter has been resolved.”In court papers, it had argued that Netflix had been exercising “its constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue” and that the line in question was “part of a fictional television series that addresses a number of significant matters of public interest, including the challenges women faced competing in the male-dominated world of elite chess during the 1960s.”“The First Amendment protects the creator’s artistic license to include the line in the fictional series,” lawyers for Netflix wrote in their motion to dismiss the lawsuit.On Tuesday, lawyers for Netflix also filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal in the case.“The Queen’s Gambit,” based on the 1983 novel by Walter Tevis, became what Netflix described as its biggest limited scripted series ever. The series, which starred Anya Taylor-Joy, won two Golden Globes and has garnered 11 Emmy Awards; there are also plans for it to be adapted into a stage musical.Alain Delaquérière contributed research. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Movies

      Johnny Depp’s Win in Court Could Embolden Others, Lawyers Say

      by

      The actor’s victory against his ex-wife Amber Heard in one of the highest profile defamation cases to go to trial could inspire others to try their luck with juries.As the #MeToo movement fueled a public airing of sexual assault and misconduct allegations, defamation lawsuits quickly became a tool for both the accused and accusers to seek retribution and redemption.Men accused of misconduct have increasingly turned to defamation suits to try to clear their names, as have victims accused of making false allegations. But between the high costs of lawyers’ fees and the fears of revealing embarrassing details in open court, many such cases are settled before they ever reach trial.The bitter legal battle between the actor Johnny Depp and his ex-wife Amber Heard was closely watched in part because it was one of the highest-profile defamation cases to make it to trial recently, and several lawyers said that Mr. Depp’s victory in a Virginia court on Wednesday — when he was awarded more than $10 million in damages — could embolden others accused of abuse or misconduct to try their luck with juries, despite the real risks of airing dirty laundry in public.Ugly charges of physical abuse and lurid testimony came to define the Depp-Heard trial, which included one line of questioning about actual dirty laundry: the couple’s fierce argument over how the sheets in a Los Angeles penthouse where they were staying had become befouled. But the jury found in the end that Ms. Heard had defamed Mr. Depp in a 2018 op-ed in The Washington Post in which she referred to herself as a “public figure representing domestic abuse.”“Some people will definitely look at this as a playbook for suing your accuser,” said Charles Tobin, a First Amendment lawyer who practices in Fairfax, Va., where the trial played out over six weeks, and who briefly represented the former employer of a witness called in the Depp case. The proceedings were broadcast and livestreamed far beyond the walls of the courtroom.The $10.35 million award to Mr. Depp was offset by a $2 million partial victory for Ms. Heard, who countersued Mr. Depp for defamation after a lawyer representing him made several statements to a British tabloid calling her abuse accusations a “hoax.” The jury did not find two of those statements defamatory, but found that a third — in which the lawyer had accused Ms. Heard of damaging the couple’s penthouse and calling 911 “to set Mr. Depp up” — did defame her.Mr. Depp praised the verdict, saying that “the jury gave me my life back,” while Ms. Heard described it as “heartbreaking.”The outcome differed from that of a case in Britain, where a judge had ruled two years ago that there was evidence that Mr. Depp had repeatedly assaulted Ms. Heard. That ruling came in a libel suit that Mr. Depp had filed after The Sun, a British tabloid newspaper, called him a “wife beater” in a headline. While Britain is sometimes considered hospitable to libel cases, the judge who heard that case, Andrew Nicol, found that there was sufficient proof to conclude that most of the assaults Ms. Heard described had occurred, and he determined that what the newspaper had published was “substantially true.”Several high-profile defamation cases in recent years have been settled before they reached trial. In 2019, seven women who had accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault, and then sued him for defamation after they were accused of lying, settled their claims; a spokesman for Mr. Cosby said that his insurance company had decided to settle the cases without his consent. And the casino mogul Steve Wynn recently agreed to a settlement of a defamation suit he had filed against the lawyer Lisa Bloom, who said she would retract a statement accusing him of inappropriate behavior involving a client.In the wake of the Depp verdict, several lawyers and legal experts said, people accused of assault and misconduct may now be more inclined to try to bring defamation cases to trial. And some advocacy organizations and lawyers worry that the case could have a chilling effect on the victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse, adding to their fears that they could be punished for speaking out.“I do think that well-resourced individuals who feel slighted by speech that embarrassed or criticized them in some way may feel emboldened by this verdict,” said Nicole Ligon, a First Amendment law professor who provides pro bono legal advice for people considering going public with sexual misconduct accusations. “I imagine part of the reason they’ll feel emboldened is beyond the verdict itself but the public reaction to it.”The trial was captured by two cameras in the courtroom that allowed the testimony to be packaged into memes and online commentary — much of which mocked Ms. Heard’s accusations of abuse. In an interview with NBC’s “Today” show on Thursday, one of Ms. Heard’s lawyers, Elaine Charlson Bredehoft, said that the cameras had turned the trial into a “zoo.”Before the trial, Ms. Bredehoft had sought to persuade the judge to block cameras from the courtroom, arguing that Ms. Heard would be describing incidents of alleged sexual violence and predicting that “anti-Amber” networks would take statements out of context and play them repeatedly.“The potential for saturation of an unsequestered jury is a tremendous risk in this case,” Ms. Bredehoft argued, according to a court transcript from February.Judge Penney S. Azcarate ordered that cameras be allowed, maintaining that Ms. Bredehoft’s argument about victims of sexual offenses would only pertain to criminal trials. The judge suggested that allowing cameras could make the make the courthouse “safer” by giving a broader audience of viewers access to the case remotely.Mr. Depp may have won a victory in court, but it may take more than that to revive his career, or for Walt Disney Studios, which has cast Mr. Depp in several starring roles, to get back into business with him.The studio declined to comment, but two Disney executives privately pointed to his box office track record as the primary reason: None of his Disney movies have succeeded outside of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise since “Alice in Wonderland” in 2010. “Alice Through the Looking Glass” was a misfire in 2016, taking in 70 percent less than its predecessor worldwide. “The Lone Ranger” was a big-budget bomb in 2013. Except as Captain Jack Sparrow in the “Pirates” films, he has not been a box office draw recently.Johnny Depp’s Libel Case Against Amber HeardCard 1 of 7In the courtroom. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Movies

      Johnny Depp Jury Finds That Amber Heard Defamed Him in Op-Ed

      by

      The jury in Virginia found that Ms. Heard had damaged her ex-husband’s reputation with an op-ed in which she identified herself as a “public figure representing domestic abuse.”For six weeks, the defamation case that the actor Johnny Depp filed against his ex-wife Amber Heard transfixed the nation, offering a rare instance of high-profile #MeToo charges and countercharges, including lurid accusations of physical abuse, being hashed out in the public spotlight of a courtroom.On Wednesday, the seven-person jury in Fairfax, Va., found that Mr. Depp had been defamed by Ms. Heard when she described herself in a 2018 op-ed in The Washington Post as a “public figure representing domestic abuse.” Mr. Depp was awarded more than $10 million in damages.During the trial Mr. Depp had fiercely denied Ms. Heard’s accusations that he had subjected her to repeated physical abuse that included punching and head-butting and several instances of sexual assault. In a statement after the verdict Mr. Depp thanked the jury, saying that it “gave me my life back.”Ms. Heard, who was in the courtroom as the verdict was read, said in a statement afterward that she was disappointed “beyond words” by their finding.“I’m heartbroken that the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate power, influence, and sway of my ex-husband,” she said.Ms. Heard did not seem buoyed by the fact that the jury also awarded her $2 million in damages, agreeing that she had been defamed in one instance by a lawyer for Mr. Depp. A spokeswoman for Ms. Heard, Alafair Hall, said she planned to appeal.A jury found that Johnny Depp and his ex-wife Amber Heard were both defamed.Craig Hudson/Associated PressSuch cases are often settled out of court, in part to avoid public scrutiny. The bitter charges and embarrassing details in this case were aired not only in open court, but also before cameras that beamed every accusation onto televisions and livestreams, where they were turned into memes and debated on social media.The 2018 op-ed that Ms. Heard wrote never mentioned Mr. Depp by name, but he argued that it clearly referred to their marriage, which began in 2015 and fell apart just over a year later, and that it was false. (Early drafts of it were prepared by the American Civil Liberties Union, where Ms. Heard was an ambassador with a focus on women’s rights and gender-based violence.)The jury agreed, and found that it contained several statements that were false, and were made with actual malice.Ms. Heard countersued, claiming that she had been defamed in 2020 when one of Mr. Depp’s lawyers at the time had dismissed her accusations as a “hoax” in statements to a British tabloid. The jury found that Mr. Depp had defamed Ms. Heard in one instance, when the lawyer accused her of damaging the couple’s penthouse and blaming it on Mr. Depp.The verdict came as a surprise to several legal observers, who noted that a judge in Britain had ruled two years ago that there was evidence that Mr. Depp had repeatedly assaulted Ms. Heard. That ruling came in a libel suit that Mr. Depp had filed after The Sun, a British tabloid newspaper, called him a “wife beater” in a headline. The judge in that case had ruled that the defendants had shown that what they published was “substantially true.”Ms. Heard, 36, maintained throughout the trial that everything written in the op-ed was true.Amber Heard leaves the courthouse in Virginia after the jury’s verdict in the libel case brought by her ex-husband.Tom Brenner/ReutersThe combination of star power, sensational details and cameras in the courtroom turned the trial into an internet obsession. Memes and posts attacking Ms. Heard, some created by superfans of Mr. Depp, proliferated online. Ms. Heard testified that she had received thousands of death threats since the start of the trial and called the online mockery “agonizing.”Sometimes breaking into sobs on the stand, Ms. Heard testified about more than a dozen times that, she said, Mr. Depp was violent toward her. In a key incident in Australia in 2015, Ms. Heard said, Mr. Depp became “belligerent” after taking the drug MDMA and attacked her, grabbing her by the neck and, at one point, sexually assaulting her with an object that Ms. Heard later determined to be a bottle.“I’m looking in his eyes and I don’t see him anymore,” Ms. Heard testified. “I’ve never been so scared in my life.”Mackenna White, a lawyer who counsels people as to the risks of publishing potentially contested accusations of sexual misconduct, said she worried that the online mockery of Ms. Heard would make some less likely to come forward.“The absolute destruction of Amber Heard is going to have an impact,” Ms. White said. “If you’re someone who’s worried about what could happen if you speak out, this could have the same chilling effect that we’ve been trying to reverse all these years.”Others saw the online reaction as a harbinger of what the jury would decide.“You have now millions of Americans weighing in as evidence unfolds in court — you can take that as an indication of how the case is going,” said Imran Ansari, a lawyer representing Alan Dershowitz in defamation suits involving Virginia Giuffre, who said she was a victim of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking operation and accused Mr. Dershowitz of being part of it, which he denies.Spectators outside the Virginia courthouse, many of them fans of Mr. Depp, reacted after the verdict was announced.Nicholas Kamm/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Depp, 58, gave a vastly different account of their relationship — and of the trip to Australia — in which Ms. Heard was the aggressor. Ms. Heard, he testified, had once been a girlfriend who seemed “too good to be true,” but turned into a partner who would taunt him, call him demeaning names, punch him and throw objects at him.In Australia, he testified, she threw a handle of vodka that exploded on his hand and severed his finger. (She denies throwing the bottle at him and said she only ever hit him in self-defense or in defense of her sister.)Johnny Depp’s Libel Case Against Amber HeardCard 1 of 7In the courtroom. More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Movies

      The Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard Libel Case Is in the Jury’s Hands

      by

      After closing arguments, the judge asked a jury in Virginia to decide a defamation trial that focused as much on domestic abuse as damaged reputations.After 23 days of testimony that painted conflicting pictures of a tumultuous Hollywood marriage, lawyers for Johnny Depp and Amber Heard delivered their closing arguments on Friday, seeking to persuade the jury that their client had been the person who was abused and defamed.Mr. Depp’s lawyers asserted that their movie star client had been falsely disparaged in a Washington Post op-ed in which Ms. Heard referred to herself as a “public figure representing domestic abuse.”The accusations of spousal abuse that she was referencing, the lawyers argued, had ruined Mr. Depp’s life.“We ask you to give Mr. Depp his life back by telling the world that Mr. Depp is not the abuser Ms. Heard said he is,” a lawyer for Mr. Depp, Camille Vasquez, said, “and hold Ms. Heard accountable for her lies.”Ms. Heard’s lawyers countered that not only were the accusations and the op-ed entirely true, but during legal proceedings in 2020, the actress was unfairly maligned when a lawyer, who represented Mr. Depp at the time, called her abuse accusations a hoax.“In Mr. Depp’s world, you don’t leave Mr. Depp, and if you do, he will start a campaign of global humiliation against you,” argued a lawyer for Ms. Heard, Ben Rottenborn.Now, the case is in the hands of seven jurors who deliberated until Friday evening and left the Fairfax County Circuit Court with instructions to return on Tuesday.The trial has drawn widespread attention because the proceedings have been both televised and livestreamed through a pair of cameras in the courtroom, a rarity in Virginia. On one YouTube channel streaming the proceedings, called Law & Crime Network, more than one million users were reported to be watching.There has been stiff competition to fill the public seats in the courtroom, with observers — most of them fans of Mr. Depp — lining up in the middle of the night to secure a spot. On Friday morning, about 150 people waited in line to get into the courtroom, with hundreds more lining a nearby road, some of them dressed as Mr. Depp’s movie characters.Peyton Elmendorf, a 27-year-old Depp fan, said that when she first heard about Ms. Heard’s accusations, she had misgivings about defending the actor given the #MeToo movement. But now, after hearing other of the actor’s romantic partners speak positively about him, she said she felt confident voicing her support.Our Coverage of the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard TrialA trial between the formerly married actors has become a fierce battleground over the truth about their relationship. What to Know: Johnny Depp and Amber Heard are suing each other with competing defamation claims, amid mutual accusations of domestic abuse.Stan Culture in the Courtroom: The closely watched trial is a case study in what happens when complex claims are filtered through the lenses of extreme fandom. TikTok’s Hate Machine: The online commentary about the trial quickly turned into an internet-wide smear campaign against Ms. Heard. Dressing to Suggest: Both litigants appeared notably sober in their fashion choices. That is no coincidental thing.“I knew he didn’t do it,” she said.Outnumbered outside the courthouse, but unpersuaded, Dan Kim, 26, quietly held a sign nearby that said “I stand with Amber.” He called it “crystal clear” that Mr. Depp had abused Ms. Heard.Supporters of Mr. Depp outside the courthouse on Friday.Craig Hudson/Associated PressUltimately, the jury must consider the veracity and reputational impact of a narrow set of statements. But the six-week trial has encompassed testimony about a vast array of alleged incidents from Mr. Depp and Ms. Heard’s marriage.Ms. Heard has accused Mr. Depp of repeated physical abuse that she said often coincided with drug and alcohol use and began with his accusing her of infidelity. She has also alleged several instances of sexual assault — including an accusation that he assaulted her with a bottle in Australia in 2015.Amber Heard, talking to one of her lawyers during the proceedings on Friday.Pool Photo via Steve Helber/ReutersMr. Depp has denied ever hitting or sexually assaulting Ms. Heard and has portrayed her as the aggressor in the relationship, recalling violence from her throughout their relationship, as well as angry tirades and demeaning name-calling. Ms. Heard has denied hitting Mr. Depp except in defense of herself or her sister.Testimony about the incidents often involved sensational details: disputed affairs with celebrities, graffiti written in blood and a missing chunk of Mr. Depp’s finger that forced the fifth “Pirates of the Caribbean” movie to pause production.In laying out the highlights of their evidence, Mr. Depp’s lawyers reminded the jury of witnesses who said they did not see injuries on Ms. Heard around the times she reported having them, showed a photo of him with a “shiner” that he said she gave him and replayed audio of arguments between the estranged couple in which Ms. Heard admits to having hit Mr. Depp. In one audio clip, Ms. Heard can be heard saying, “I did start a physical fight,” challenging her claim that she only hit Mr. Depp as a defense. (Ms. Heard testified that in those instances, she hit him in response to his own aggression.)His team also pointed to instances where there were no medical records or photographs to corroborate her allegations of abuse.“The ‘mountain of evidence’ that Mr. Depp abused Ms. Heard is simply not there,” Ms. Vasquez argued. “What we have is a mountain of unproven allegations that are wild, over the top and implausible.”Ms. Heard’s lawyers described witnesses who said she had told them about the abuse. Mr. Rottenborn played a video of Mr. Depp angrily slamming kitchen cabinets and showed jurors a text in which the actor told Ms. Heard’s father he had gone “too far in our fight.” He then showed the jury a photo of Ms. Heard with a red mark on her face after, she said, Mr. Depp hurled a phone at her. Elaine Charlson Bredehoft, another of her lawyers, reminded the jury about a forensic psychologist who testified to reviewing a therapist’s notes — which were not entered into evidence — that reflect contemporaneous reports from Ms. Heard where she complained of sexual abuse.“A ruling against Amber here sends a message that no matter what you do, as an abuse victim, you always have to do more,” Mr. Rottenborn said. “No matter what you document, you always have to document more. No matter whom you tell, you always have to tell more people.”Johnny Depp’s Libel Case Against Amber HeardCard 1 of 6In the courtroom. More