Not taking sides on Depp/Heard but did want to include the rest of TMZ article:

I think we could all spend more time trying to address the apparent intent as opposed to quibbling over semantics.

I don’t think he meant to. Objectification and sexism often intersect with each other so I can see how he would have been confused or just simply misspoke about it. It doesn’t seem like he is trying to minimize the fact that women are objectified. He just needs a lesson in Intro to Women’s Studies and he would…

At the same time, I understand how the mix up can happen because sexism and objectification often intersect with each other.

Hmmm, I agree that he meant objectification. Which, yeah, probably sucks and feels icky. If you look at what he said, he’s not complaining of being discriminated against, he’s just being sick of being asked to take his shirt off. Sexism was definitely the wrong word to use. It’s a shame, because looking at the rest of…

I think he needs to flesh out his ideas more, but if someone says they feel uncomfortable or pressured into undressing to stay employed, I think those feelings are valid and I encourage them to speak up about it, regardless of gender. Even if what he said is rather clumsy, there is a point there that’s worth pursuing.…

Slander laws, he has to legally prove what happened to him or what happened to Corey or the accused person can sue him for slander. And he cant legally prove what happened because the people he would accuse cannot actually be convicted of doing it because the limitations are up. Its an endless loop, and confusing as…

I could be totally wrong about this, but could it maybe be considered libel or character assassination or something like that?

The “actual malice” element only applies to public figures, and many of these senior execs would not qualify because they’re just not in the public eye. And having to defend yourself against a lawsuit like that can get very expensive very fast, even if you’re in the right. And even if you win, you’re out those legal…

Rapists suing their victims is a depressingly common tactic, and given that most survivors have no evidence (because how could they), coming forward opens you up to not just the immense retraumatization of it but potential litigation—which the abuser may not win but it will sure as hell be painful and expensive for…

Well, look what happened with Elijah Wood. He didn't name anyone, and a day later he backtracked. Obviously, if someone with so much clout who has been famous for so long can't say anything before someone else gets to them, this shit goes deeper than we can imagine.

Yes. Time and time and time again, news breaks of abusers who operated for years. They were either too intimidating or their reputation was too “good” for victims to come forward and risk not being believed or it’s just (c’mon, we all know this by now) shame that keeps victims silent, especially to their parents.

There are also just general concerns about getting into legislating affirmative conduct. In terms of people’s freedom, there is an analytical gap between forbidding people from doing things that hurt other people and legally requiring citizens to actively help others. And then it gets into a slippery slope - why just…

It’s entirely possible. Children go years being abused without parents knowing/pretending not to know. And abusers have ways of keeping survivors silent. So if the children never speak out, I’d imagine it would be quite easy, especially in that environment, where any telling behavior of the child could just be chalked…

The logic is the same as the logic for any other type of case - evidence goes away over time, people’s memories become worse, people forget things. But there’s been a big push to do away with statutes of limitations for rape and child abuse because of the psychological factors at play that mean that victims don’t…

They didn’t sign a prenup and honestly I think that has a lot to do with it. they have been married long enough that an annulment isn’t really an option so now she can divorce him and take that $

Depp’s mom hated her so that’s why she filed for divorce a couple of days after she died? I mean, doesn’t Amber realize that makes her look bad? Or does she realize how bad it makes her look so that’s why she leaked this story?

I hope you’re not an English teacher because you don’t understand sentence construction.

The handcuffing is a dickish move, but he had warned her to be quiet several times. I get that she’s trying to keep her client out of jail, but surely interrupting the judge like this won’t help matters.

It sounds like she was in contempt of court, though. I know that usually is applied to disruptive defendants and witnesses, but is there any reason it couldn’t be applied to an attorney, if she continually interrupted the judge?