I’ve mostly avoided following this too, too closely, but this a defamation case. Watching that video, the juror’s statements make them sound completely uninformed as to what the legal definition of defamation is, and who the onus is on, which is a judges job to make sure they understand it. It makes zero sense to…

“However the juror insists that the jury “followed the evidence,” and that those who did use social media sites “made a point not to talk about it.”

For all the legal scholars weighing in on the legalese of the case, THIS is the essence of why some of us are disgusted by the verdict. Because CLEARLY, as proven by this juror, it wasn’t about the legalities. It was a fucking performance review of two actors.

Here’s a link to the article she wrote and for which Depp sued her. You tell me where it actually says he physically abused her.

Yeah, what these legal experts are completely missing is how gross it is that the thing she “should” have done is the same thing that she “shouldn’t” have done because the jury apparently thought she was doing the thing she “should” have done. It all just reads as some fucking review of a stage play. It isn’t whether…

If they abused each other... then her statement in the Post was categorically true and not defamatory....even with that interpretation their finding makes no sense.

My commentary is that you make yourself sound silly.

OMG how is this still a thing. The damn trial was about defamation!!!!!! How is no one grasping that yet. Johnny’s team did not prove that Amber was even talking about him. 

I’m not going to state my opinion on this trial, because I watched as little of it as possible.

If I ever did, I certainly wouldn’t conflate my reaction to someone else’s expressions with “following the evidence,” as this guy did. You aren’t following the evidence if you’re trusting your gut reaction on how trustworthy someone appears.

I’m just boggled by comments here implying that if someone who has been through incredible trauma doesn’t tell her story in the exact right way she doesn’t deserve to be believed.

“Her lawyer should have better trained her on how to behave on the stand, and she should have had someone keeping an eye on the jury’s reactions to her to adjust as necessary. Heard looked like she was putting on a performance.”

So you’re saying her attorney should have trained her to put on a better performance.

Nice of the jury to get in on the victim blaming.

“What I think is truthful is that they were both abusive to each other,” he says. “I don’t think that makes either of them right or wrong… but to rise to the level of what she was claiming, there wasn’t enough or any evidence that really supported what she was saying.”

I don’t understand why “stable demeanor/emotional state” would make you think “telling the truth,” under the circumstances; if anything, it would make me think, “practiced liar.”

Hanks’ involvement almost certainly attracted an audience who otherwise would have dismissed it as a “gay movie.” I don’t think it’s overreaching to say watching an actor you know and love play a character who is treated so fundamentally unfairly and die in such a heartbreaking way had an effect on mainstream…

Of course he could have done it today. Rami Malek, Olivia Coleman and Mahershala Ali all won Oscars in 2019 for playing queer characters. We’ve made some progress when it comes to LGBTQ actors and filmmakers being able to tell their own stories, but let’s not kid ourselves.

I think the thing is, in the 90s, they probably didn’t even consider casting a gay actor, nor were there many openly gay actors in Hollywood. Thirty years later, in a (moderately) more accepting society, there are gay performers who can play that role, studios more willing to hire them for it, and a public less likely…

I get that Hanks is drawing a distinction between what was acceptable in the past versus the, uh, “modern realm of authenticity.” But I don’t think Philadelphia would have been better served by (almost) any other actor, whatever their sexual orientation. Not in acting ability alone, but also in terms of cultural…

Well, the characters actually are largely smug ninnies. I think that’s part of the show’s appeal. Either it works for you or doesn’t.

And They Might Be Giants was never a mainstream success. If you want to burrow in deeper into the counterculture and decide that they don’t meet your standards for it, so be it, but the…