There's this column, from Erik Wemple — "Depp-Heard case hinged on the world’s worst #MeToo op-ed." Wemple's column, like the "world's worst #MeToo op-ed," was published in the Washington Post:
The first draft came off the keyboards of the ACLU, via consultation with Heard. Four lawyers at the ACLU reviewed it to ensure that it aligned with the organization’s policy positions. Heard’s lawyers separately scrubbed it for compliance with a nondisclosure provision of her divorce settlement, according to an ACLU spokesperson.
So Heard’s celebrity conferred standing at the ACLU, which then leveraged her name into a Post op-ed. The byline was accurate only to the extent that the ACLU tried to craft a piece consistent with Heard’s spoken views. Which is to say, not very accurate.
Kris Coratti, a Post spokeswoman, says that the opinions section has a standard form seeking attestation from op-ed writers that they actually wrote the work under their bylines, though it’s uncertain whether it was requested in this case.
“We recognize that many writers receive help with their pieces at various stages along the way,” notes Coratti in an email, “and the involvement of the ACLU in the piece was disclosed to us. We also disclosed to our readers Heard’s relationship with the ACLU, as she did in the body of the piece.”...
As for the Washington Post (which was not sued by Depp):
The Post on Thursday appended to Heard’s op-ed an editor’s note apprising readers of this week’s developments. It was a neutral passage that avoided taking a position on the Virginia jury’s verdict, and amplified the weakness of the piece itself — which was that The Post was taking a shortcut to this controversy, forgoing the journalistic effort required to piece together a bona fide #MeToo story. A jury has made its decision on the merits of the case. Does The Post stand by the op-ed? “We do not take stands on the opinions shared in our op-eds,” replies Coratti.
Here's Heard's original column. It's still up at WaPo (with a note about the lawsuit). I was interested to see the most-liked comment, which was posted when the column first went up:
Amber Heard should not be given this platform when she herself was arrested for domestic violence at an airport against her old girlfriend, Tasya Van Ree. She also admitted in a deposition during her divorce that she punched and hit her ex-husband in the face during an argument. Another important thing to keep in mind, is that she originally sent a letter of financial demands to Johnny Depp that basically stated she would not ruin him publicly with allegations of abuse if he caved in to her demands. He did not, and that is why all their dirty laundry was aired. She is a fraud if you read about the case. I think their relationship was mutually dysfunctional, but nothing like she described. By the way, I could care less about [Johnny] Depp and am not a super fan defending him, but I was intrigued by the whole fiasco and paid close attention to the details and court filings. I think [there] is enough evidence to point to the fact that she greatly exaggerated what happened or blatantly lied....
The Washington Post and the ACLU really did behave awfully.
পোস্টগুলি
৪২টি মন্তব্য:
On the bright side, Amber and Johnny are both available and ready to start dating again.
"The Washington Post and the ACLU really did behave awfully."
More awfully than normal???? What is your baseline, here?
Making up sources, pushing fake info that says the Republican nominee for President is a Russian asset? Stalking 14 year old daughter of Kelly Conway?, making fun of Baron Trump?, or is it just their lying as a business model that (FINALLY) bothered you.
Now do the NYT.
The ACLU is now suing Depp for reimbursement to the tune of $86,000. You see, the ACLU needed to review 6000+ documents in order to determine the less than 2000 to hand over to Depp, and Depp needs to pay for the time the ACLU spent reviewing 4000 documents Depp never received.
since women will assault you...
#believeAllWomen!!! especially the Big Brutes, that will knock you silly if you don't!
Johnny Depp should arrange a meeting with Bezos and his girlfriend. You know she'd be all smitten with him. Jeff be all like, "Hey, I have a rocket".
Why does this surprise anyone? Why did anyone pay attention in the first place?
Accusations of domestic violence are routine when you are divorcing someone with big bucks. Recruiting celebrities to generate publicity is standard operating procedure for fundraising operations like the ACLU.
Still, I must admit. Recruiting a minor celebrity like Amber Heard to simultaneously ensnare a megastar like Johnny Depp was an act of genius.
What?! Heard’s own lawyer(s) reviewed the op-ed before it was published!
One of my first comments was that Heard’s lawyers should have gotten an indemnification agreement from the ACLU because the ACLU wrote it. And her lawyers should have known that Heard was a liar and that her claims about Depp were false.
Looks like malpractice to me.
What is really going on is that Amber and here lawyers were tried to extort Depp. When that didn’t work, they tried to ruin him. Depp, however, fought back and won. Tough guy. A real hero for the truth.
Prof, aren't you being a bit harsh on the WAPO and ACLU: after all, they got the narrative right; it's just the facts they got wrong!
“… The Washington Post and the ACLU really did behave awfully.”
Will there be consequences?
Yeah, didn’t think so.
"The Washington Post and the ACLU really did behave awfully."
They behaved awfully! They shouldn't have done that! They should be better! Why aren't they better? It's awful they behaved awfully!
Does anyone expect better from the WaPoo or the ACLU?
In a way this case is like the Sussman trial. The FBI, the WaPo -- the Institutions use us as their playthings.
I find it weird that WaPo wasn't sued, too, along with Heard. Was the ACLU sued?
The behavior of WaPo and ACLU reminds me of Iowahawk’s deathless quip:
1. Identify a respected institution
2. Kill it and gut it
3. Wear its carcass as a skin suit while demanding respect
Out: "Democracy Dies in Darkness."
In: "The truth dies in the bowels of the Washington Post."
Also in: "George Washington was a racist. That's why we need to remove his name from GW University but not our newspaper."
"They really did behave awfully"
The way I read that it sounds like you think this is the first time. It's not. It's not even a statistically unsignificant number of times.
They behave awfully. A lot.
I'd much rather talk about the role played by the newspaper which published and disseminated the defamation and why they cannot be made to pay a price: The Washington Post, owned by the world's richest man.
If Johnny Depp was defamed by Amber Heard's written words, why isn't the Washington Post culpable legally for printing them?
The Washington Post and the ACLU really did behave awfully.
And they'll be teaming up again to go after your guns.
I didn't pay close attention, but how did this case end up in Virginia?
And how is any of this 'me too' stuff any of the ACLU's business?
They used to represent free speech, not defamatory speech.
A commentator with discernment. Bloody hell, that means one of the seven seals has been breached, right?
Many grasped at straws to blindly tar men and indirectly tar Trump. The shift from "Believe all women" to blind and radical defense of all things transgender was yet another thoughtless knee-jerk reaction. This era will be remembered as not too different from Red Scare of McCarthy or the French Reign of Terror.
All major lefty dailies will give you the same response: we do not correct incorrect opinion pieces. Why not? They won't say.
Years ago, the NYT published an op-ed in which the writer misrepresented a sentencing law we had just passed in Georgia. It was a significant but simple misstatement of the number of years applied to a crime. I politely requested a correction. The editor actually called and told me that they agreed it was untrue, but their policy prevented them from putting a note in their corrections section or under the op-ed itself. He told me to send a letter to the editor specifically phrasing that I was 'adding the detail that the sentencing framework was X years,' but I was not to call it a correction or note that the writer was in error or use the word "actually."
I thought that level of detail was really funny. Imagine being the guy whose job it is to laboriously not get the facts straight? Besides "NYT Editor," what would the rest of his job title be?
This case, like many events, is correctly understood by interested amateurs a long time before the professional media get the story right.
Isn’t the pathetic decline of the ACLU the real story here? Who gives a fuck about two rich, spoiled, narcissistic brats abusing each other and then running to the public like they’re mom and dad?
The ACLU is also highly involved in efforts to keep males in women's prisons.
So there's that.
The ACLU and the WaPo behaved according to their narrative, facts be damned.
It seems to me that both Johnny Depp and Amber Heard have good cause to be angry with the ACLU. I hope they both sue. Maybe they could do a class action. So to speak.
David Begley said...
What is really going on is that Amber and here lawyers were tried to extort Depp. When that didn’t work, they tried to ruin him.
I watched some of the trial (Mrs. NorthOfTheOneOhOne watched most of it) and it was clear that Heard's main attorney, Elaine Bredehoft, was heavily invested in the #MeToo cause. It was not really an attempt to extort Depp as it was an attempt to smash the patriarchy and take down a "powerful man", who they seem to think somehow controls Hollywood, the LAPD and the Australian government. It seemed to be a folie à deux and Bredehoft's antics during her post-verdict appearances on the morning news shows have done little to convince me otherwise.
I seem to remember that the ACLU's house lawyer testified that even though their legal department vetted the article to make sure there were no defamatory statements, Heard and the non-attorney staffer handling the affair inserted the defamatory material prior to publication without a re-review.
I'm not 100% sure of that, though.
I'd be interested to know who (WaPo or ACLU) came up with the headline. I have always heard that headlines were the province of the newspaper's editors.
Democracy Dies in Darkness!
The Washington Post and the ACLU really did behave awfully.
Yes, they did
I hope you don't find that surprising
Remember the KKK, the ACLU and Skokie, Illinois?
I do. Discussed it with my mother who convinced me freedom of speech was valuable even if you detest the speaker.
How the mighty have fallen.
I see no role whatsoever for the ACLU because happiness is not a civil liberty. Despite the popularity of Jefferson's phrase "the pursuit of happiness" it is not in the Constitution, mainly because people often compound happiness with pleasure, to the consternation of moral philosophers since Plato. Perhaps with prescient wisdom, the interim confederate government sent Jefferson and his high-flown rhetoric to France, leaving him out of the 1787 Constitutional Convention.
The Depp/Heard imbroglio is about nothing more than an unhappy marriage, perhaps richly deserved by two people who clearly illustrate the consequences of adults equating happiness with pleasure. What did Amber Head seek in the marriage? I suggest her goal was wealth and professional success. And Johnny Depp? A beautiful woman to cling to his arm at galas and film festivals. Neither considered the moral worthiness of his prospective partner before taking those easily nullified vows -- Heard because she evidently hasn't a clue regarding her moral and ethical obligations to others, in other words, she's a garden variety psychopath, Depp because he's generally too drunk and/or stoned to give the question enough thought.
the WAPO and ACLU: after all, they got the narrative right; it's just the facts they got wrong!
WAPO et al spin handmade tales to power.
The ACLU is also highly involved in efforts to keep males in women's prisons.
Political congruence ("="). The Progressive Church, Agency, Corporation, Clinic wants you to prove them wrong.
Get a clue, ACLU.
The Washington Post and the ACLU really did behave awfully.
They are both evil organizations staffed by evil people that do evil things in pursuit or evil goals.
Supporting them with traffic is supporting evil.
These were the three statements that the jury found defamatory:
(1) “I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.”
(2) “Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.”
(3) “I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.”
Here’s the law school exam question: How is each statement false?
Ummm Erik....
Let's talk about the role YOUR paper, the Washington Post, had in publishing those defamatory statements...
Let's also talk about YOUR co-worker, Taylor Lorenz, who is printing false information about online influencers who called out said defamation...
Both Depp and Heard are losers. However, Depp seems to limit his destrucyive behavior to himself while being a beloved figure to his friends and professional collegues. Heard, on the other hand, appears to be a B-List opportunist who projects her destructive tendenancies upon others.
Sad. I suspect Depp will be able to reform himself as did Robert Downey Jr. I fear Heard has committed career suicide. Just shows that beauty is truly skin deep.
Does The Post stand by the op-ed? “We do not take stands on the opinions shared in our op-eds,” replies Coratti.
Funny. I thought statements of opinion couldn't be defamatory -- had to be untrue statements of fact. I guess that's what the court and jury thought they were.
For what I assume were good tactical reasons, Depp's lawyers decided not to sue WaPo, but we the public are free to conclude that the paper published untrue statements of fact, probably either negligiently or recklessly. No big deal. I assume they do so all the time.
Don't you?
Left Bank of the Charles said...
These were the three statements that the jury found defamatory:
Here’s the law school exam question: How is each statement false?
(1) “I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.”
Well, exactly how DID she "face our culture's wrath"? And did she get hit with the "wrath" for lying?
Because if she got "hit" for lying, then her statement is a lie
(2) “Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.”
She was not in fact a victim of domestic abuse, and knew it. So that was aq lie
(3) “I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.”
No, she had the vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men FALSELY accused of abuse
Oh, and exactly HOW were "institutions" "protecting" Depp?
My understanding is that Depp had to do this lawsuit in order to get his name, and ability to star in movies, back.
Because Heard's dishonest accusations took that away from him
In light of the UK libel judgment for The Sun on the wife-beater statement, this should have been an uncontroversial article.
Readering said...
In light of the UK libel judgment for The Sun on the wife-beater statement, this should have been an uncontroversial article.
In light of what we heard in this case, it should be "uncontroversial" that the UK libel judgement was wrong.
Fortunately, VA law doesn't allow you to use a foreign court ruling as a "get out of proof" free card.
So, Rendering, ar you trying to claim that Depp was in fact physically abusing Heard in the ways that she claimed?
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন