The much-watched trial of formerly married Hollywood actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard concluded last week when the jury found Heard liable for defamation against her ex-husband. After the June 1 verdict, Heard stated that she had lost her right to "speak freely and openly."
The lawsuit was sparked by Heard's 2018 Washington Post article, in which she said she was a survivor of domestic violence and sexual abuse. Depp accused his ex-wife of tarnishing his reputation and ruining his career.
The jury found that Heard had defamed Depp, awarding him $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. The jury also awarded Heard $2 million in compensatory damages for Depp's lawyer calling Heard's claims a "hoax."
In such cases, where does the right to free speech end and the right to protect one's reputation – and livelihood – from knowingly false, damaging statements begin? It appears the jury's verdict ultimately came down to credibility. At numerous points during the trial, Heard's credibility was questioned and found to be lacking. For instance, famed supermodel Kate Moss (who formerly dated Depp) took the stand as an impeachment witness with respect to Heard's claims that Depp acted violently against Moss. This, among other things, ultimately ruined Heard's integrity in the minds of the jurors — if a witness lies under oath about just one thing, who's to say he or she isn’t lying about everything?
The sensationalized trial that has dominated the media was never about freedom of speech – it was a matter of credibility. After weeks of testimony and contradictory evidence, the jurors concluded Heard's was lacking.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects Americans' right to freedom of speech. But 1A does not apply to defamatory speech, which includes any statements that are falsely presented as fact and do subsequent harm to others.
"Although honest utterance, even if inaccurate, may further the fruitful exercise of the right of free speech, it does not follow that the lie, knowingly and deliberately published about a public official, should enjoy a like immunity," cites Eugene Volokh in his recount of Justices Goldberg and Douglas' arguments made in an earlier case that has now become standing precedent.
While one initially has the right to publish a story, if that story is found to be full of lies and harmful intent, and actually does harm the subject and target, the author is no longer protected under the First Amendment.
Parler Chief Policy Officer Amy Peikoff explains that the Depp-Heard verdict is unlikely to have future implications for the First Amendment law:
"The current law draws the appropriate line between the right to speak freely on the one hand and the right to preserve one's reputation and livelihood—via legal action if necessary—on the other. The fact that Heard happened to be found liable for defamation, due to her lack of credibility in the eyes of a jury, should not call that into question."
It’s clear the author of this story didn’t watch the trial. In truth, few watched more than slanted recap videos that slandered Amber. Amber referenced a rumor about Kate Moss and Johnny Depp that circulated in the 90s. She called it a rumor and never said it was true. Many people claim Amber lacked evidence but are unaware that some of her evidence was not permitted to be shown in this trial, just as Depp’s UK trial against The Sun, which he lost, was not allowed to be discussed in this trial. If you watched the verdict, you know that Amber was sued for $10 million for writing the following statement two years after filing for a restraining order: “Two years ago, I became the public face of domestic violence.” The jury had to find this statement false in order to award Depp with anything, but we know it’s far from false. Amber’s face was plastered all over the internet and magazines tagged with the word “abuse” two years prior to that statement. Watch the verdict. Better yet, watch the entire trial and you’ll see what nobody’s talking about: Johnny Depp falling asleep during trial, he and his lawyers scoffing and snickering during witness testimonies, and Ms. Vasquez winking at the jury towards the end.
This wasn’t an abuse case. Neither party can legally sue the other on abuse grounds because of the statement they signed at their divorce. It is strictly a defamatory case. Now look around. Whose name has been slandered outside of this trial? Who’s been lied about? Millions of people believe Amber was snuffing cocaine on the stand while sitting right next to the judge. Why? Because she blew her nose. But when agents and production companies testify that Depp showed up late to set costing them millions, and to red carpet events intoxicated, and Depp himself admits to using many illicit drugs but claims he doesn’t have a problem, he’s the victim. It’s time to wake up.
Slander and defamation are NOT free speech...just like certain speech is illegal. (Screaming "Fire!" In a movie theater)
It's funny she says this....considering she actually has sued others in the past for things they have said.
Free speech for her, (when it's not) but not for others. (When it is)?