I've seen a lot of stuff like this since yesterday:
I am a bit stunned that more journalists aren't outraged and stunned by the Heard/Depp verdict.
In addition to being a disaster for domestic abuse survivors, it is a disaster for a publication's ability to tell truth to power.
— Adam Davidson (@adamdavidson) June 2, 2022
I have no independent opinion about this since I didn't follow the trial and know almost nothing about what kind of evidence each side produced. But there are a few things I do know:
- Plenty of seemingly rational observers believe that Amber Heard presented a lousy case with virtually no good witnesses and no good documentary evidence.
- This was strictly a defamation case between Depp and Heard. It was based largely on an op-ed published in the Washington Post, but it didn't involve the Post or any other news outlet.
- Seven jurors who did hear the entire case voted unanimously in Depp's favor on the main defamation charges.
The fact that one woman lost one defamation case doesn't mean the end of #MeToo. Nor does it mean that Heard was railroaded. Nor does it have anything to with whether Johnny Depp is, in general, a good human being. It just means that in one particular case, involving one particular charge, a woman was unable to convince a jury that she could back up defamatory things she had said in public.
I dunno. As I said, I'm, no expert on this case. But we can't go all to pieces every time a woman loses a defamation or sexual assault case. That happens sometimes. Sometimes women exaggerate. Sometimes they lie. Sometimes they just present a lousy case. Taking women seriously doesn't mean they automatically win every time they go to court.
These have been my thoughts also.
Media commentary--and especially social media commentary--seems to want to treat every event as complete and total victory or defeat. That's not how the world works.
The problem is a practical one.
In the era, let's say, before MeToo, the practical penalty for a woman claiming (more on "claiming," below) abuse was, sadly, on the woman. There was a higher chance of the woman being fired from a job after being harassed than there was of the harasser being fired for the harassment.
OK, so let's say that after MeToo, there has been a shift. Now, the practical result of taking claims of harassment seriously, is, well, if the default is "claim = serious" and that its righteous to make a claim, then the penalty shifts to the abuser. You can see the results of this, many abusers have been fired, drummed out of work, and generally ostracized, upon the making of the claim. Perhaps "penalty" is not the right word, its that a claim of abuse now equals a presumption that abuse occurred.
Note that in many cases, even though the claim may be of a criminal nature, the penaties accrue before any conviction.
Well, the practical effect now is on the accused.
But IMO its dangerous to have a presumption that all claims are valid, and its really, really tough to figure out how to take claims seriously but require sufficient proof before the penalty kicks in.
My wife handles defense cases. She has one in particular, where a relatively high profile abuse claim was made. For reasons partially privileged I would say the claim is at absolute best, subjective. That has not stopped virtually the entire plantiffs bar in my city from basically advertising for victims, abetted by the fact that the place where this person worked was so eager to pay out money that those plaintiffs attorneys rightly see this as a guaranteed payday.
Long after the press dies down, I am confident nothing will be proven, and the defendant's life is completely ruined along the way, of that I can assure you.
Now, anecdotes don't make good policy.
But here, Heard's position was that saying she was a victim of domestic abuse should be consequence free.
The answer, of course, is for some sort of procedure to make the claims confidential, that way the claimant can make it with no worry about defamation.
Its tough though, the old status quo was awful and wrong.
I've seen lotsa people saying Amber Heard appeared to be lying and wasn't convincing. (Didn't pay any attention to the trial myself.)
I also see lotsa women saying they are upset that social media rose up like an Army to defend Depp and attack Heard. I can understand that frustration.
Wasn't the case basically: Amber Heard said Depp was abusive?
From what little I read he's on tape ranting and raving, sending texts saying she should be dead etc. Sounds like an open and closed case that he was abusive, whatever else happened.
I dunno. Sounds to me like it's not defamation if you're on tape being a violent wild man.
Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the legal case rather than ad hoc "seems to me"
That was the case though. Amber Heard claimed abuse, Johnny Depp said no she's lying and she ruined my career. Heard showed evident of Depp being a pretty rotten husband and Depp even admitting to getting into fights with Heard.
Did Depp get into fights with Hesrd ir did Heard get into fights with Depp? He wasn't always the agressor.
Yes both admitted to hitting each other with each claiming the other was the aggressor both providing some footage to support their claims.
Wasn't the case basically: Amber Heard said Depp was abusive
Not in the WaPo piece she wrote. She didn't mention Depp by name. If anything it would appear she (and/or her editors) took pains to stop well short of anything legally jeopardizing. And she still ended up getting zapped for seven figures.
For your amusement (and admittedly off the topic we're discussing here), Washington Post had a media column saying that was a terrible op ed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/03/depp-heard-verdict-washington-post-op-ed/
Sigh. Let's get this idiocy resolved once and for all. Do you _really_ think that not mentioning someone by name is enough to legally inulate you from any sort of legal jeopardy for defamation on your part. Doe anyone really think that?
Despite what certain individuals will doubtless say, this is not a 'gotcha' question; this is a simple yes-or-no question. This "if he isn't an abuser than why did he sue" is way too cute by half. Also and again and I am not at all afraid to say it: I am better than those who do so, full stop. Not because of any sort of special behaviour on my part; it's simply that they're scum for engaging in such tactics.
Seems like there's a little hyperventilating, but I'm less sanguine than Kevin.
Any MeToo accuser already knows they'll be put through hell if they confront their accuser in public, especially if the offender is powerful.
This adds a very high profile example of someone then being very publicly bankrupted not for a direct accusation, but for simply alluding to their abuse while using no names.
That is going to stick in people's minds.
This is why this was a horrible and nonsensical verdict.
Depp's defamation lawsuit argued that Heard had lied when she said she was a victim of domestic abuse.
In response Heard countersued, and one of the claims in her suit was that Depp and his lawyers had defamed her by saying that the pictures and evidence that Heard had produced to document her physical abuse when it occurred at the hands of Depp were staged by her and her friends.
Putting aside who you thought presented a better case, or who was lying and who wasn't. There is no possible scenario were the two claims above can be true at the same time.
For Depp's argument to be true (that Heard lied when she said she was abused), then that means that Heard wasn't abused, and that whatever evidence she presented for her abuse was indeed made up, as Depp was arguing.
For Heard's claim to be true, that means that the evidence of abuse she presented was indeed real and not staged, meaning she was indeed physically abused by Depp at least on that one occasion.
If you think Heard lied and thus defamed Depp when she claimed she was a victim of abuse, then that means you think the evidence of abuse she had was indeed made up.
If you think the evidence of abuse was real, then Heard didn't lie when she said she was a victim of abuse, and thus Depp did defame her by calling her evidence fake.
Somehow, these 7 (not 12) jurors nonsensically found both to be true. Heard defamed Depp by saying she was a victim of abuse, while Depp defamed Heard by saying her evidence of abuse was fake.
The reason many people see it as a huge setback on the Me Too movement is more or less explained by one of Heard's attorneys:
“If you didn’t take pictures, it didn’t happen; if you did take pictures, they’re fake,” he said. “If you didn’t tell your friends, you’re lying; and if you did tell your friends, they’re part of the hoax. If you didn’t seek medical treatment, you weren’t injured; if you did seek medical treatment, you’re crazy.”
This was a case were there was contemporaneous evidence that Depp was an abusive man, including his own texts, and yet the media focus was on making Depp the poor the victim (bolstered by his legions of fans and media push) because Heard was a not very sympathetic person. The jurors themselves seem to agree with Heard that her evidence was real, since they ruled in her favor on that claim of her countersuit, yet, even with evidence they acknowledge is real, they still at the same time rule that she lied when she called herself a victim of abuse? What else must a victim do then? If they don't have physical evidence, then they are shamed for not having evidence, but now even if they do, that is still not enough if their attacker, who in almost every case will be a person with more power, money, influence, etc., decides to come after them with a defamation suit like this? Seems like no matter what, and even when a jury agrees your evidence of abuse is real, that same jury will still favor the attacker and penalize you.
Finally, it's also worth noting that the jury was not sequestered, which makes you wonder if that played a role (even if it is not supposed to) because this was a case that received massive and extremely one-sided coverage tilting in favor of the much more powerful person in the case.
Oh? Tell me, I'm curious: Why can't both be true at the same time? Also, how old are you?
What bizarre questions.
Here's a cluestick: the fact that you think these are bizarre questions reflects poorly on you, not on me. Especially since you refused to answer them. You want me to take you seriously? Then act like an adut.
Mr. Temper Tantrum ScentOfViolets requesting someone to act like an adult... only at jabberwocking!
Your two replies here are needlessly personal and unpleasant.
They can't both be true at the same time because:
* Depp sued claiming Heard had defamed him by implicitly suggesting he was an abusive husband. So either he is an abusive husband, or he is not an abusive husband. If he is, then she did no defame him in the WaPo article. If he is not, then there's more of a case that she defamed him.
* Yet the jury determined that Heard's claims were not hoaxes. If this is true, then ergo, Depp was abusive. Ergo, she did not defame him.
* Somehow the jury made the above determination, yet also decided that Heard had defamed him.
Remember, this was not a case about the nature, origin, justification etc. of any abuse in their relationship. It was a defamation suit, centered on the question of whether heard defamed Depp in the WaPo article or not.
The jury said "her evidence/claims are not hoaxes, but she defamed him anyway". It's nonsense. I hope she sppeals and wins, purely for the legalistic side of it.
Sigh. You. Didn't. Read. The. Notes. Heard was awarded damages for statements made by Depp's lawyer. Note also that I found _your_ statement to be ... unpleasant. At best.
Now, if you want me to take you seriously, you will admit that you were off base about your last point in light of the fact it was the lawyer, not Depp, who made those defaming statements. You'll also note that -- unlike you -- I haven't taken any sides in this dreary dreary very public affair. Now grow up.
No, I believe that you are still wrong.
It doesn't matter whether it was Depp or his lawyer who made the remaks. The jury found that Heard's claims/evidence were not hoaxes. Ergo, there was abuse from Depp directed at Heard.
I am not taking sides for Depp or Heard. I think the credibility of the legal system is the problem. Having juries return contradictory verdicts on points of the trial is not good for anyone.
IOW, you didn't read the notes, as at least one other poster as noted and you yourself admitted. And yes, you were very definitely taking sides in your first posting; you're 'just the facts' schtick is precisely what set me off, since we're discussing how each of us is coming across to the other.
TL;DR: Don't venture an opinion along with a simultaneous admission that you haven't read up on the facts of the matter you're opining about.
At no point have I admitted to anything. I have not advocated a "just the facts" schtick".
You seem to be attempting to be making a big deal out of issues that are not relevant to the contradiction that many, many commenters have observed in the jury's verdict. It's in the NYT, the Guardian, it's on Twitter, its on LGM, it's all over the place. There's widespread alarm that the verdict makes *no sense* regardless of what you believe about Heard or Depp's claims.
At no point in my comments did I claim that Depp had defamed Heard. You apparently think that is what I meant, but it is not. The jury found that Heard was defamed **by someone claiming that her evidence/claims were hoaxes**. It does not matter who that person was, I never named the person who the jury found to have defamed her.
When I refer to "unpleasant" comments, I refer to belittling another commenter's age, their reading comprehension, and generally making ad hominem remarks instead of actually substantively engaging.
Hey Paul Davis the 1st, I get what you are saying and just wanted to reply in case you think no one is joining you here.
In simplest terms:
-- Amber Heard called Depp an abuser (yeah, yeah, I know she didn't "name" him, but everyone who was paying attention to their marriage -- which didn't include me -- knew who she was talking about.)
-- Depp said " You lie! I'm no abuser. That's defamation. Pay up!"
-- Heard played some really disturbing audio and video clips of Depp being really abusive.
Thus by definition she didn't lie or defame him.
The question at trial was not: did they have a good relationship? Or, is Amber Heard a wacko? Or, is it possible to be stupid enough to marry Johnny Depp and also be a clever defamer?
The question at trial simply was: was it a lie that Johnny Depp was an abuser? And the obvious answer -- whatever your view on those other questions -- from the evidence presented was that Johnny Depp was an abuser. Therefore, it's no lie, and not defamation, to call him an abuser.
Really quite simple.
Nowhere in that op-ed is it stated that Depp was an abuser (and no, I am not talking about the detail of his name not being mentioned). The op-ed states that she "became a public figure representing domestic abuse" which is absolutely true, even if every allegation she ever made about Depp were to have been found false. The case should have been thrown out without ever making it to trial.
My impression was that she did not appear to have such injuries on the day she was claiming to people that it had happened, but that he did not produce any evidence to support his specific scenario of how those pictures were produced and that's why her countersuit succeeded on that point, which is not a ruling on the actual documentary reality of the photos.
My understanding is that her successful counterclaim was based on a defamatory statement by one of Depp's attorneys, not Depp himself.
Anyway, she is going to appeal Depp's successful verdict so the games can continue.
Yes, that is why defamatiaon charges were awarded. Not that anyone with a partisan axe to grind cares, as demonstrated by some of the nincompoopery posted above.
i have no opinion on the case because i know nothing about it, but clearly both COULD be true. Depp could have abused her, and she could have produced faked evidence of abuse because she didn't have real evidence even though abuse did occur.
If Depp abused her, then she didn't defame him. That's the point. The jury is saying that both defamed each other. In Heard's case, the statement was made by Depp's former lawyer, but that doesn't really matter.
They are saying that Heard defamed Depp when she said she was a victim of abuse. This is only true if the jury believes there was no abuse and she intentionally lied about it.
At the same time they are saying Depp's former lawyer defamed her when he called Heard's abuse evidence a made up hoax fabricated to damage Depp. That is only true if they believe the evidence is real and the lawyer knowingly lied when he called the evidence fake.
If the the abuse evidence isn't fake, then she didn't defame Depp.
If the abuse evidence was deemed fake, and thus she defamed Depp, then his lawyer didn't defame her.
That's why the verdicts are contradictory with each other.
Righto. Very weird from the I'm Not a Lawyer p.o.v.
yeah, as i said explicitly, i have no opinion on the merits of the defamation case. i'm saying that it is possible that he abused her and that her evidence was faked.
Obviously, in a world where juries cannot reliably deliver justice, women being abused will simply have to kill their abusers during or shortly after an episode of abuse that leaves visible injuries, and then claim self-defense. Self-defense claims work really well when the other person involved in the dispute cannot testify at trial... and sadly, really, really well if the other person involved in the dispute is of a darker skin color.
Self defense claims almost never work for women who are abused. "He never killed you all those other times he beat you, so why would you need to kill him now?"
In my city there was recently a case where an abuser was shot by a third party while actively abusing his girlfriend. Not only that, he had broken down the apartment door in order to beat her. Think that shooting was viewed as justified? Nope.
When it comes to abuse against woman, any action a woman makes to try to stop her abuser is seen as proof she couldn't really be abused.
"Taking women seriously doesn't mean they automatically win every time they go to court."
That's the thing Kevin, she didn't go to court, she was dragged there. It is already extremely hard for any abused woman to win a case in court when they present charges, which is why it doesn't happen frequently. What the Me Too movement changed to some degree, was to at least present them the opportunity to speak publicly about it even if legally there wasn't much that could be done against their perpetrator. In this particular case, she didn't even mention Depp when she publicly spoke about her situation in the Washington Post article, and the article itself wasn't some type of guided missile directed at Depp listing every detail of the abuse (unlike say what women who accused Cosby, or Weinstein, or others did when they talked publicly), yet now what this decision is likely to do, is put an extra layer of fear about speaking up, especially if the perpetrator is famous, or has a lot more money and power than you do.
She did an OpEd.
Made claims,
Was held accountable.
People lie. Men, women.
Not every case is Martyrdom.
The available evidence says this was a mutually abusive relationship of two damaged people. Not everything is Women's Last Stand.
Sometimes it's just two assholes.
Piling on Every Woman is a Saint kind of meaning on to any such dispute is making inhuman expectations out of humans.
The available evidence says this was a mutually abusive relationship of two damaged people.
Not relevant. It doesn't matter whether the abuse was mutual or not. Heard implied (rather elliptically) that she had been abused by Depp in her WaPo article. A court in the UK agreed, and even this jury mostly-sorta-kinda-agreed. Whether or not she defamed him is not contingent on any abuse from her directed at Depp.
Sure, the whole relationship seemed sort of messed up. But the defamation suit bought by Depp wasn't about that.
And there it is. And was I right or was I right 😉
Another comment more or less devoid of content. I mean, freel free, but you're hardly contributing anything to our understanding of the issues here.
You got it all wrong, pal: I'm not commenting on this case per se. I'm commenting on jackasses like you who just _have_ to have an opinion no matter what their understanding of the facts are. Oh, and BTW and for example, it wasn't a 'court' in GB that came up with this conclusion, it was a singular judge who has since come under a lot of criticism for the way the handled the case. Which -- again -- you would have known if you had made the slightest bit of effort to inform yourself before commenting.
Is it possible for you to write any comments at all that do not waste time belittling the person you're responding to?
My (and many others) usage of "a court" is a widespread convention, particularly in cases where there was no jury trial, only a judgeent. It is used in the UK, it is used in the USA.
You have no idea what I've read, and your only response here is to insult people who may have read more, less or the same as you but have reached different conclusions. It's pathetic, really.
ScentsOfViolet is one of the few resident trolls around here. No matter the topic, if you write something he/she doesn't agree with, and no matter how well reasoned, or politely written, he/she will attack you with childish insults and pretend that you are just not at the same level of intellect and should just apologize for existing and trying to argue with him/her. So, don't waste your time trying to reason with this idiot.
Funny how someone complaining about the unpleasantnes of another poster can't help but continually be unpleasant themselves. Let's just say for argument's sake that I am being unpleasant rather than merely critical; according to you, then, you're a rather unpleasant fellow (not that we didn't already know that, irrespective of the argument from you that I am advancing now); doesn't matter if it's in response to perceived unpleasantness, amirite 😉 But it gets better. You're a liar. Unless you've never told a lie in your life (the circumstances, don't matter, again per your statment above) and if you try to sell that one, I'll call you a goddamn liar.
(Shakes head.) Son, I'll never understand why gits like you blow themselves up time and again after it's been pointed out that they've just spewed a bunch of nonsense. But there it is. And I will cheerfully bring this up every time I see you posting.
Exactly. Not relevant. The question was not "did they have a great marriage?". The question was simply: "is it a defaming lie to call Johnny Depp an abuser?". If he's yelling and screaming and breaking stuff and sending text messages about her death, that makes him an abuser. Whether she was an idiot or abusive too has nothing to do with what his claim was.
Oh dear lord. Uh, no, you don't get to redefine words like 'abuser' either. What the Hell is wrong with you people? Especially if you want people not to double over laughing when you tell them you don't have an agenda nossirree Bob, and BTW, I didn't follow the trial either.
The stupidity. It burns.
In this particular case, she didn't even mention Depp when she publicly spoke about her situation in the Washington Post article,
This is what I find bizarre about the whole affair.
Like Kevin I think the claims that the verdict represents some dangerous new paradigm change are overdone. Women, after all, are just as capable of defaming their fellow humans as men are.
But I wonder if the problem with this particular case lies in the court: perhaps they simply should have rejected the case?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/02/the-depp-defamation-suit-should-outrage-and-appall-you
I would suggest a careful read. Key point:
This may seem pedantic to those who support Depp and believe he was wrongly accused of abuse; for many of Depp’s supporters, today’s verdict feels like justice. But it’s not. And it matters that this jury appears to have set aside the law itself, because defamation suits by the powerful can be highly effective tools for suppressing speech.
That is one dangerous lesson of this trial: that people who speak out about abuse might be hounded in court to the point of bankruptcy; that men with power or money or public opinion on their side – or all three – can count on a sympathetic jury willing to bend the letter of the law if it means punishing an unlikable woman.
Yes. I had the Filipovic Guardian piece in mind when I wrote my original comment.
Or ... it might be that if you accuse people of abuse you better have damn good evidence. No, SoV says drily, video footage of being slammed up against a wall hard enough to rattle your teeth is _not_ evidence of being abused if immediately before that you were coming at that person with a broken bottle.
Whadda surprise. Still waiting for a retraction. And now an apology.
Kevin has been an opponent of MeToo since at least the Franken era.
Kevin is slowly yielding to cranky-old-man syndrome.
In particular, anyone taking advice about modern sexual relations and consent from a long-married old man should really know better.
Kevin also recently got robbed of his iPhone, so he might not be as sharp as he used to be. It's not hard to not be pickpocketed: simply don't flash your expensive shit in public and minimize the expensive shit you have on you at all times.
There's an interesting article over at NYMag:
"The Mainstream Media Lost the Depp-Heard Trial"
"And the lifestyle influencers turned court correspondents won."
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial-influencers.html
The author (Choire Sicha) argues that Tik Tok and Instagram "influencers" turned public opinion against Heard.
Now here's the thing: most of those influencers are Millennials and Gen-Zers and more than a few of them are women. Cranky old men got nothing to do with it.
Me too makes women look wimpy. Maybe they can use Christianity again to feminize men.
Not me: I tan my testicles daily.
Yup.
Like his 2020 Democrat primary favorite Kiz Warren, KD likely believes -- or at least sees the utility in -- Tara Reade, but otherwise is very circumspect on accusers's claims. Again, unless utile to Reagan Democrat cause.
The trial has been a very sad sorry farce. On the one hand I'm SO glad I wasn't tapped for this trial - I'm just a couple miles away from the courthouse -- OTOH the jury poll was obviously comprised of all the idiots I see on Nextdoor. I'm not sure this means doom and gloom for woman's rights, I'll wait and see how the appeal goes - if the verdict gets overturned or it causes massive push back against all the pigs trying to make this a big deal in the cause of male domination, it will not have mattered in the end.
Her lawyer definitely needs to revisit the assumptions that the judge made that (1) Amber Heard couldn't possibly have been writing about being abused by anyone else during her lifetime and so the unidentified abuser had to be none other than Johnny Depp and (2) that somehow, despite a UK court concluding that Johnny Depp more likely than not abused Amber Heard, a US court concluded the exact opposite. And if all else fails, simply fail to pay the $10M and move out of the country. Fuck the US - we're circling the toilet drain now and why wait for the final flush.
I like how everyone just knows that Amber Heard was referring to Johnny Depp when she wrote that WaPo piece... but she doesn't actually name him in her op ed. I guess it's not possible that she was the victim of domestic abuse from any other men on the planet besides Depp? It definitely is a weird form of defamation though: to not actually name the person you're defaming and yet everyone can conclusively believe they know the identity of the person and put you on trial for that anyway.
If I write "I'm a victim of domestic abuse" here, will I face charges of defamation later on? Or does the ability of everyone else to know who my abuser was depend on both of us being famous? Ridiculous.
I agree this is a troubling aspect of the case. But her lawyers didn't try to argue she was referring to another person, did they?
Her lawyers made some sort of terminating motion (summary judgment or dismissal) and lost. In defamation law, what Heard did is called innuendo. You don't have to literally name the "victim" to be liable.
In defamation law, what Heard did is called innuendo. You don't have to literally name the "victim" to be liable
That's an interesting point.
You think you have to name names before you can be credibly said to be engaging in defamation? Ooookay.
I've tried to avoid this trial--but did come across the Vox write up:
https://www.vox.com/culture/23043519/johnny-depp-amber-heard-defamation-trial-fairfax-county-domestic-abuse-violence-me-too
Basically where Heard was punished, was her innocence as a abuser. The verdict accused her as a abuser and she shouldn't have made a op on hypocritical grounds. So she adds in the sexual abuse, which was made to sound ludicrous, many feminists see her as a wimp......If true.
Depp and Heard's careers have both been derailed by drugs. Depp at least had a prime, a great one, which was fading due to age. Heard destroyed herself.......with a old man which should be her prime. Sad.
Seven jurors, not 12.
The most detailed legal account I read after the case because I very assiduously did not follow it in real time is that Heard just needed to prove that Depp ever abused he even just a single time for the defamation case to fall apart. So, it shouldn't have mattered whether she abused him or not. The issue is that Depp claimed he was defamed by abusing Heard. So, again, if he did it even a single time then he wasn't defamed because that statement was true.
And who knew Depp still had fans?
What is certainly the case is that Johnny Depp's movies became substantially worse during the period they were together.
What that means and how it may relate to this is as yet a mystery.
Also, when did he start taking style tips from Steven Seagall?
Bernie Lomax
As with so many other people, I will make my own WAG and say that they weren't good for each other. Quite the contrary. Particularly when it came to self-abuse, i.e., drugs.
Bill Cosby getting released on a technicality put a big damper on Me Too
yeah, i'd say that's a far more egregious and damaging decision. why depp/heard seems to be getting so much more attention i don't understand.
This is interesting:
“Sometimes women exaggerate. Sometimes they lie.”
This is the sort of common sense observation that, in another time and place, probably wouldn’t raise too many eyebrows. After all, every human lies at some point.
But, these days? I don’t know, call me crazy, but wouldn’t that sort of statement get Kevin fired (or at least censored) if he still worked @ Mother Jones?
I remain astonished that so many people don't give Heard any agency by virtue of her being a woman. The point of Feminism isn't that they're better than the slobs holding them down or some such nonsense. The point is that they are people every bit as much as their male counterparts. Said too many times but I'll say it again since it hasn't apparently sunk in with a certain set: Feminist rights are _human_ rights.
Well, she is a objectivist. It's a large part of the distaste for her subconscious means. Conservatives didn't think this one through well.