More Commentary on the Depp/Heard Trial

And why many of us should probably pay attention.

This is further social commentary that builds upon my prior article from Monday, which can be found below. It was originally behind a paywall but was released so that I could provide further commentary. Please read that one before reading this one. If this isn’t to your liking, I’ll be writing more science-related stuff soon. Maybe about monkeys or Tylenol. We’ll see.

What does the Depp/Heard Trial Reveal about Modern Day Institutions?

As of now we are nearing the end of a nearly 6 week-long trial between celebrities and former couple Amber Heard and Johnny Depp.

I have not hidden how I’ve grown quite fascinated with this trial. I never payed any mind to what the whole fuss was between the former couple’s tumultuous relationship- it’s celebrity culture, why should I care?

Many of you may have expressed similar sentiments. It is quite hard to relate to the most privileged and elite and so we may pay no mind to the affairs of the upper class.

But we’re also a group who should know the significance of culture and media in shaping the way we think and perceive information. Why else would celebrities and social media influencers be used to propagate and champion vaccination campaigns? And better yet, why else would celebrities be at the forefront of much of the nation’s social and cultural movements, including ones that involve changes in federal policy?

The role of the celebrity and the public is one of a parasocial relationship, in which we live vicariously through those with greater means than ourselves. They may pay no mind to us, but many of us pay plenty of mind to them.

So if not for the celebrities involved in these trials, consider the overarching ramifications of what the Depp/Heard trial mean within the cultural sphere, and how this parallels everything we have experienced over the past few years.

---

Disinformation in the Public Eye

Celebrities are no strangers to the media- there’s a reason why tabloids continue to remain relevant. And it’s for this reason that we may find celebrity culture rather obnoxious, if not for the overly exaggerated portrayal of those in film and television.

But there’s a difference between hyperbole and a presentation of otherwise disingenuous and outright false statements. COVID and the disinformation campaign about vaccine safety and efficacy have trained many of us to be wary of what we read and view in the media, and we may be a lot more careful to buy into whatever story we are being told.

The #MeToo movement itself was intended to be an upheaval of sociocultural norms, and the original intent could be considered benevolent in its initial inception. But there’s a stark difference between being well-intentioned and utilizing a social movement for one’s own benefit while also damaging the lives and reputation of others.

As of now Amber Heard is not playing well within the court of public opinion, and it appears that media outlets are taking this revelation as a moment to alter public perception through their own disinformation campaign. Because of this, it should not be surprising to see a similar disinformation campaign taking place in regards to this trial.

For those who prefer a video analysis, the YouTube channel Hoeg Law has been going through a few of these articles and elaborating on their falsities:

Take a look at this article from the New York Post, a right-leaning journal that was censored for trying to report on the Hunter Biden laptop story.

If I wasn’t paying attention to this trial (or was not skeptical of the media period) I may buy into this headline. It’s main intent is to shape perception of those naïve to the trial towards one position.

Even more interesting is that this appeared in a right-leaning journal, which may be preaching to a rather indifferent audience as it pertains to celebrity culture, and it’s because of this that many on the right political spectrum may be caught of guard.

But aside from the headline the article doesn’t provide much in the field of evidence, but really lambasts those for daring to chastise Amber Heard and vilify her.

So why such hatred for Heard? Why are there so few feminist voices standing up for her?

On Monday, she testified that Depp, more than once, grabbed her by the pubic bone and “taunt[ed] me, asking me if I thought I was so f—ing tough — ‘tough like a man now?’

Amber Heard has more recall, detail and receipts than Christine Blasey Ford ever did. Yet while Blasey Ford became an immediate cause célèbre, a truth-to-misogynist-power meme, a metric of liberal feminist bona fides, Amber Heard has become a punch line.

How is this fair? Or logical?

Testify is one thing; providing evidence is another. The main issue with this article- and as we will see with others- is that it starts with the false premise of “believe all women”, something that has pervaded much of the #MeToo era. It’s one that presumes the veracity of a statement rather than validates the evidence provided.

Because if Amber Heard had so many receipts, why did she not provide any photographic or video evidence of her assault when possible, and instead made somewhat accusatory claims that her attorneys may not have provided all of the evidence of abuse to the court? And why did all public outings appear to show no instances of the abuses that she claimed?

And what about this article from Vogue, which considers the criticisms of Amber Heard’s testimony as being akin to a witch trial (emphasis mine):

I don’t want to think about what this is saying to victims of abuse who are considering coming forward. And regardless of what Heard did or didn’t suffer at the hands of Depp, isn’t the relentless memeing of her a form of violence in itself? Is the pummeling by social media not a type of psychological assault? Are we not witnessing a modern-day witch trial? […]

Though I’ve felt myself veering toward it, I can no longer “both sides” this. It’s time to draw a line. It’s time to believe women—all women. It’s time to believe Heard. The British courts believed Depp beat his ex-wife. What’s stopping the rest of us?

And then there’s this rather tone-deaf article from Buzzfeed, in which the journalist laments the public treatment Britney Spears experienced without realizing the large role the media played in propagating the falsehoods¹:

But what’s rather telling is this excerpt below (emphasis mine):

In 2007, readers looked to tabloids for evidence of Spears’ troubles, and now people laugh at Amber Heard's court photos set to a zany soundtrack on TikTok and create stan accounts for Depp and hate accounts for Heard on Twitter. Paparazzi made bank in the 2000s by stalking women celebrities and sticking cameras up their skirts; now content creators are pivoting to covering the trial on social media in hopes of striking gold. No groundswell of support for Heard has materialized in response; according to NBC News, an analysis of 2,300 Twitter profiles surrounding the trial showed that 93% of those users were supportive of Depp.

In a battle between online censorship and freedom of speech, we should keep in mind that social media is the modern way to disseminate information. What then, do you do when Tik Tok users may curtail the endeavors of media to create their own narrative about the trial?

Silence them, of course!

Apparently many Tik Tok videos making mockery of Amber Heard’s testimony were removed from the platform, and a multitude of outlets seem to be pushing this form of censorship.

But as pointed out by Megan Fox in her article on PJ Media, there would be no mockery if Amber Heard’s statements were, in fact, factual. Instead, this is another form of censorship to propagate an ideologically-driven narrative (emphasis mine):

The current spin appears to be “Tik Tokkers are making fun of a ‘sexual abuse’ survivor and that’s outrageous and wrong.” But of course, that’s not what people are mocking. If anyone believed Heard was being truthful, no such campaign to mock her would exist. But people have watched the trial and come away feeling that Heard is not just less than truthful, but outright lying on the stand while stealing glimpses at the jury to check how she’s doing. It’s painful to watch.[…]

TikTokkers have found Heard’s testimony completely unbelievable. They aren’t mocking her for being a “victim of abuse.” They are mocking her for being disingenuous, fake crying, telling stories that don’t make any sense, and claiming things that couldn’t possibly be true. Mocking liars does no harm to truth-tellers.

But this is going to be the new mantra of the #MeToo cult that is desperate to hang onto the power they’ve amassed over the last few years. They want us to “believe women” at all costs, even when they are lying. One #MeToo advocate who bombarded me with tweets today actually said that Depp could have left Heard if he was abused. This is the new pro-female line. “If a woman abuses a man, it’s his fault because he could leave.” Try saying that about a woman in a domestic violence situation and you’ll be run out of town on a rail.

This is not to say that Johnny Depp is an innocent victim, but if the argument here is that he [Depp] is the vicious monster that was portrayed by Amber Heard, and one of the factors that led her to write her Op-Ed piece within the Washington Post, then why go through such great lengths to portray such a story without backing evidence?

The current trial is one that provides a reality check. It reminds us of what happens when we take well-intentioned ideas and bastardize them to the extent that we swing the cultural pendulum way too far, such that we experience and overreaction and overcorrection rather than a reasonable referendum.

---

But it also reminds of the stark contrast and cognitive dissonance on display by the mainstream press. It stands completely antithetical to what we can witness for ourselves due to the live coverage of this trial.

As I mentioned before, the Rittenhouse trial was a brand new window into a world of law that very few of us would ever be able to witness outside of serving as a juror. It is now where we could see for ourselves the process of an ongoing trial and comment in real-time without the filtering of the mainstream press.

A new world has been created on YouTube now informally referred to as LawTube; a collection of former and actively practicing attorneys from all backgrounds who have begun to livestream public trials occurring all across the nation.

It started with Nick Rekieta’s live coverage of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial and the amalgamation of lawyers present to commentate on the trial as it progressed.

Take it to the Depp/Heard trial where even more lawyers are now able to circumvent the mainstream media and their portrayals, so much so that several members of LawTube (YouTubers and lawyers Runkle of the Bailey, The DUI Guy, and Law and Lumber) were able to sit-in on the actual trial and provide insight to other members of LawTube, something that would have been considered unprecedented.

The layperson’s ability to reach the masses without the aid of legacy media is a telling defeat for those who wish to shape the way we perceive cultural events. It becomes difficult to shape a narrative and stoke fear when individuals have the ability to see for themselves whether the facts match the reporting. But unlike the Rittenhouse trial this trial is reaching widespread appeal.

Far more people are captivated by this trial than Rittenhouse, and far more people are able to witness the lies perpetrated by the media to manipulate the public’s perspective on this story. It’s the reason why many of these Lawtubers serve as antagonists to the mainstream press, to the point that many of these commentating lawyers have received strikes and takedowns of their channels.

In essence, we are witnessing a reckoning among the mainstream press, who’s erroneous coverage of COVID culminates into further erroneous coverage of the Depp/Heard trial.

---

The “So What” Moment

So, you may have reached this point and said, “This is all well and good, but I still don’t get the point. There’s monkeypox to talk about!”

I may not have also organized my ideas in a coherent manner, but this somewhat unrelatable trial does parallel much of what we see going on right now in other cultural and political spheres.

No Media Outlet is without Bias

We all have our own intrinsic biases, but for us our biases may not be so egregious to change the national discussion on vital social topics.

I mentioned The New York Post above just because of this fact. As much as we would like to praise The New York Post for their attempts at covering the Hunter laptop story, they are just as likely to spin stories to the benefit of their institution and organization. Remember that The New York Post is under the same company as The Sun, a UK outlet that Johnny Depp sued for referring to him as a “wife-beater”. Depp lost the lawsuit, and it was used as validating for the supposed assaults of Amber Heard.

Therefore, we can assume that the heavily slanted portrayal of his story is due to The Post having an intrinsic reason for being biased. So maybe they attempted to report on the Hunter laptop story, but they certainly aren’t reporting on the Depp/Heard trial accurately.

All in all, it reminds us that mainstream outlets don’t have our vested interest at heart. Even if they report to get stories right they may be just as likely to spin a story to their own benefit even if it means providing false stories to the public.

It requires due diligence to not be so naïve to trust any media outlet, and it’s a reminder to not fall victim to the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. Always “trust but verify,” and always do your own research.

An Era of Independent Media

It goes without saying- mostly because I said it above- but this is a pivotal moment for independent journalists to take the reigns from the mainstream institutions. This is clearly happening on Substack now where far more people can directly read and discuss topics with writers; topics that would otherwise never be covered by the mainstream press. It’s why Substack runs afoul of the establishment media. I’ve commented that the media is closely watching Substack, if not to find things to chastise then to find things to plagiarize. Many people on Substack are doing the legwork that old-school journalism used to do.

It is also why LawTube has been so deeply targeted by media outlets, mostly for their open discourse and candid discussion which will not be heard anywhere else.

More people are waking up to the fact that they can get vital news without the narrative filter of the press, and the more people come to this realization the more we can loosen the stranglehold on public discourse.

This is a Relatable, Teaching Moment

So I may get a bit of flack for this but I’ll outright say it: conservatives have a messaging problem. They do not know how to relate to younger generations, nor do they understand the cultural battle that has been brewing for decades. It’s why progressives continue to win on the cultural front because conservatives don’t know how to approach it- they’ve abandoned it for far too long. They’ve essentially become the Steve Buscemi meme in the form of a political party.

That is not to say that this should be a political battle, but let’s take for a moment to examine how you would like to explain to your family or friends that they shouldn’t listen to everything that both the media and our institutions push onto all of us.

If you are skeptical of the COVID hysteria, how would you talk to your niece, or any other so-called “normie” for that matter?

Do you think you’d really be able to have a discussion with her when you may end up coming off as the crazy uncle yelling about the World Economic Forum and Davos? And shouting at your hairdresser about the “New World Order” certainly isn’t going to convince her that you shouldn’t be institutionalized.

I’m seeing far too many people winding themselves up without understanding how to talk and express themselves without coming off like a lunatic in the general public. Not everything has to be about the WEF, the WHO, or Klaus Schwab, and constantly invoking such names isn’t going to help prove your point.

But what this moment can serve as is a moment for discourse and dialogue. This is a moment where millions upon millions of people are tuning into this trial. It’s a moment for people to realize that they may not be able to trust everything they see and hearing coming from the media, and that maybe the institutions that we blindly trust may not be the benevolent institutions we make them out to be.

I came across this comment in one of the livestreams criticizing the media’s reporting of this trial, and I think it serves as a good presentation for how to approach this moment:

same. i totally bought media coverage with Rittenhouse and its been quite a trip going back and watching lawtube coverage of it and realizing I need to be way more critical of news

So instead of asking your niece about the WEF, maybe instead ask about this trial and how it is being portrayed by the media. Look at this as a time to wake people up from the blind naivety of going along with whatever they see. Let them learn to become more critical individuals who regain their ability to view their world through a nuanced and skeptical lens.

So if you are someone who didn’t care for this trial, try looking up a few videos and seeing how the media is portraying the trial versus how people within LawTube are explaining things.

If you are someone who thought that Kyle Rittenhouse showed up to Kenosha to shoot black people, maybe go back and watch some of the trial coverage there and see how it relates to the fallout by the media. I’ve written about it before as well.

And if anything, use this time to see how those around you are viewing this trial, and if they believe Johnny Depp is the giant monster that he is being made out to be, spend some time and discuss whether what they are watching are the true facts of the matter or a media slant.

Well, that may be enough ranting and raving. Thanks for those who have stuck around to the end! And again please check the prior article for more context into the trial and more context in regards to the role #MeToo and the ACLU played in this trial.

---

1. Ironically, the article links to another article casting aspersions at the media for their hand in the whole Britney Spears affair.