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

And what can we take away from the trial?

Note: I released this article for paid members on Monday, but I am releasing it to the public since I would like to add further commentary to this topic. Yes, it’s a cultural article and not COVID related, but there are plenty of aspects to this trial that reflect what we are seeing in a broader cultural lens.

Today the defamation lawsuit between actors and former couple Johnny Depp and Amber Heard is continuing after a week-long break.

Edit: The first sentence was originally cut-off. It has been corrected.

For anyone who has been keeping up with the trial, Depp and Heard were previously married for only a few years, with the marriage ending tumultuously.

However, a few years back- around when the #MeToo movement was gaining lots of momentum and public attraction- Amber Heard came forward with an Op-Ed written in the Washington Post about being a victim of sexual violence and being a champion for women’s rights.¹

Edit: I have added additional context below. Please refer to Footnote #1.

Now, the article never “formally” refers to Depp, but for anyone who has been keeping track of the trial they would know that this article was the main conduit for the defamation lawsuit against Heard².

It’s an article that has all the hallmarks of what we should expect in modern culture: A wealthy person of high-status having a starring role in one of the nation’s most read news outlets pushing for social justice and political movements.

More importantly, it’s something we have witnessed occurring with more fortitude over the past few years, and we can clearly see it within the context of the COVID-era where there’s been a joint venture between federal institutions via the FDA and CDC, celebrities and social media influencers all pushing for draconian lockdown measures and massive vaccination.

In the grander scheme of things, this trial means more than what we see on the surface, as it highlights all of the wrongs we may be witnessing in our modern culture.

---

The court of public opinion

What’s interesting about this trial is that it is being publicly aired-something that has hardly been allowed until recently.

One of the first pivotal moments was the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, which was not just aired on mainstream outlets but on several YouTuber’s channels such as Nick Rekieta’s channel Rekieta Law. It marked a drastic change in how people perceived law, as not only was the Rittenhouse trial publicly aired but it was being commented on in real-time by a panel of diverse lawyers.

More importantly, it pierced the veil of the mainstream narrative surrounding the incidents in Kenosha, Wisconsin. No longer could the media cultivate and tailor their narrative around a white supremacist kid who “crossed state lines” in order to shoot 3 black people and kill two of them: the evidence was right there in full view of the public, and it was no longer possible to hide behind media tactics.

In short, Kyle Rittenhouse did not shoot 3 black people, he did not bring his firearm across state lines, and he did have ties to the community he was purported to have been protecting.

I’ve written about this before, mainly because the Rittenhouse trial would shape what it meant to defend yourself in this country. As someone who is of Asian descent, who had family members rushing to try to buy firearms because they were scared of their own safety when the Pandemic began, this trial struck a close, personal nerve in me.

The Response to the Kyle Rittenhouse Verdict Encapsulates why I Walked Away

Even with all the evidence available, the media still attempted to push bold-faced lies about the incident:

The initial article posted by the outlet The Independent. It was later changed, but it speaks of the media’s inability to even commit to proper journalistic integrity.

The Rittenhouse trial marked a moment where the media and political operatives could no longer feign a position of decorum and propriety. Their lies and their misreporting on the incident fell under the scrutiny of millions who tuned into the trial. The filter of the media’s narrative no longer worked. And more importantly, we could finally see for ourselves how far the media will go to lie and defame someone for the sake of garnering activist points.

And that takes us into the Depp/Heard trial. Unlike the Rittenhouse trial, this currently ongoing trial is receiving far more public interest. It shouldn’t be a surprise- Johnny Depp is beloved by many for his portrayal of the crass, unlucky, rum-loving pirate Jack Sparrow in The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.

Of course, this parasocial relationship- which many in the public have with celebrities- means that this trial is more emotionally-driven than the Rittenhouse trial.

Nonetheless, it provided a window into the world of law; one that most people would hardly care to peer into. And just like the Rittenhouse trial, it showed the faults of modern day culture as peered through the media.

---

Modern day institutions in light of recent events…

Let’s take for a moment and assume that there is not much crossover between the Rittenhouse trial viewers and the Depp/Heard trial viewers.

For all intents and purposes, the viewers of the Depp/Heard trial may be more culturally “considerate”- more likely to view institutions such as the ACLU, BLM, and #MeToo with a more positive light than Rittenhouse trial viewers.

So what does it mean, then, when the faults of these institutions are brought to light for a much wider audience to view?

It’s become much more clear that Amber Heard may have used the pretenses of the #MeToo movement to further her career and become a champion for social justice causes. There have been many people who have commented that they are “leftists³” who believe Johnny Depp, but these comments beg the question as to how many people have blindly followed an ideology such as the #MeToo movement, rather than viewing these movements with a discerning, critical eye. Sure, the ideas of the #MeToo movement are extremely important and have their place in modern society, but the movement as an institution has altered the perceptions of violence to preclude instances of male victims⁴ or to immediately “believe all women” rather than to “trust but verify” accusations. Many people who are defending Johnny Depp and view him as a possible victim of domestic violence may be the same people who would turn a blind eye to male victims of assault.

It begs the question: is Amber Heard a victim of domestic violence in need of the #MeToo movement to radically change policies in the US; or is Johnny Depp a victim of the #MeToo movement’s overzealous need to find a boogeyman in order to prop itself up as an institution worth giving money, time, and attention to.

Remember that the #MeToo movement came on the heels of the Title IX controversy. Title IX was a civil rights provision that focused on providing more funding and opportunities for women in collegiate athletics, but under the Obama Administration a letter titled “Dear Colleague” was released which weaponized Title IX to broaden the scope of assault, creating a kangaroo court in which defendants of assault could not know the names of their victims, were not given due process, and led to many young men being forced out of university with no way of clearing their name⁵. Therefore, there already was a pretense to scrutinize the extent to which social justice causes were weaponized, and the Depp/Heard trial has made it all the more clear the consequences of weaponizing ideology.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who on the surface may seem like a formidable institution for upholding civil rights, may have played a much bigger role in architecting Heard’s Op-Ed piece, putting into question the ACLU’s ethics considering that many parts of the Op-Ed many have been false. Keep in mind that the pairing of Heard and the ACLU was intended to make Heard an Ambassador for the ACLU, and thus push for more stringent addendums to the Violence Against Women Act, which in some aspects suggests that the pairing was intended to influence federal policies.

For many, the ACLU is nothing more than a simulacrum of what once was. The ACLU’s original intent was one of holding up the civil liberties of all Americans, even for those many may deem morally reprehensible and detestable. One of the most pivotal cases taken up by the ACLU was the Skokie vs. Illinois case, in which a group of neo-Nazis fought for the right to protest through a predominately Jewish community full of Holocaust survivors. This was an extremely controversial decision, and the ACLU was met with heavy criticism and protestation from the public for defending the rights of those deemed indefensible.

Nonetheless, the ACLU- comprised of a large number of Jewish lawyers- decided to take up the case and defend the right for the neo-Nazis to protest. One such lawyer (David Goldberger) who worked on the case provided these concluding remarks:

I remember other instances of unexpected support, too. There were times when, during speeches I gave about the Skokie case, Holocaust survivors courageously stood up to say that I was right to have represented the Nazis. Several years later, another survivor sent me a letter saying the same thing. These survivors said that they did not want the Nazis driven underground by speech-repressive laws or court injunctions. They explained that they wanted to be able to see their enemies in plain sight so they would know who they were.

Their statements were like lights in the darkness of anger and misunderstanding. To this day, I have no doubt that the ACLU’s commitment to equal rights for all is a backbone of our democracy — no matter how offensive our clients are. Chipping away at this commitment will open the door to the erosion of the First Amendment as a bulwark against rule by tyrants.

It’s a rather unfortunate fall from grace for an institution that prided itself in defending the civil liberties of ALL Americans, only to turncoat and selectively apply what ideas they deem fitting. The ACLU never played favorites in regard to one political party, but in recent years it has somehow found it fitting to fall in line with progressive policies, leading to an abandonment of first and second Amendment principles,⁶ among other portions of The Constitution.

Ironically, the New York Times released a very timely article in 2021 arguing about the actual state of the ACLU.

The ACLU was also no fan of the Rittenhouse verdict, and the ACLU of Wisconsin sent out a scathing response suggesting that Rittenhouse got off…because of white supremacy⁷- sentiments that seem to pervade much of the current members of the ACLU:

“Despite Kyle Rittenhouse’s conscious decision to take the lives of two people protesting the shooting of Jacob Blake by police, he was not held responsible for his actions, something that is not surprising. But Kyle Rittenhouse isn’t the only one responsible for the deaths that night. The events in Kenosha stem from the deep roots of white supremacy in our society’s institutions. They underscore that the police do not protect communities of color in the same way they do white people. 

So what does it mean when an institution that once defended the right for neo-Nazis to protest now finds itself playing a hand in the construction of a highly questionable Op-Ed for social justice points? And for those who defend the ACLU, even in their limitations of free speech protection and their response to the Rittenhouse verdict, do you still consider this an institution worth defending in light of the Depp/Heard case? And have you reconsidered some of the prior positions taken by the ACLU, such as the Rittenhouse case?

For many of us who are aware of the biases of these institutions, many of these revelations are par for the course for what we would expect. But for many who may be blind or naïve, this may be a wakeup call to realize that these institutions may not have people’s best interests at heart, but instead may prey upon people’s moralistic leanings through the pretenses of social awareness and social justice.

---

A time for greater awareness

Many parallels can be drawn between what we are witnessing with the Depp/Heard trial and what we are experiencing in the grand cultural scheme.

Even now, as Elon Musk is making headway into Twitter, social medial platforms such as Tik Tok are brimming with Amber heard videos and memes lambasting her incredulous performance on the stand. Of course, the media has decided to sway the court of public opinion with their own pieces denigrating people for not taking the trial seriously or undermining victims of assault.

Take this article from The Cut chastising critics of Amber Heard⁸:

The New York Post, who was previously blocked by social media platforms for attempting to report on the Hunter Biden laptop story, has not been so favorable towards Johnny Depp. Considering that both The New York Post and The Sun⁹ are owned by the same company (News Corp), it may not come as a surprise, but it at least suggests that outlets that may get some things right should not be provided unfettered support- they are likely to be driven by their own biases to change how they report on stories.

So what does this mean in the greater context? It means that we should be more cognitively aware of many of our institutions. We should not be so blind to assume that established institutions, whether institutions for social justice causes or for medical regulations, have the best interests of the public in mind. They are likely to have their own prejudices, their own biases, and may push for ideas and movements that can bolster their authoritative position even further.

We should become more discerning viewers of stories, and make ourselves aware of the intent of these institutions- what do they have to gain for pushing what they do?

And be aware of the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect. Many of us who have been critical of the current COVID policies may pay no mind to the current issues going on with the Depp/Heard trial (or vice versa), but it’s important to understand that we may be staunch critics of one topic while being blind to the faults of others. The currently ongoing trial should raise pertinent questions- if the ACLU and the #MeToo movement are willing to go through such great lengths to push a farfetched story, what length may other institutions go through to push their own narrative?

This is a time for more people to gain awareness; to become more skeptical and become more critical of the media and the institutions that prey on our principles of morality. It’s also a time to become more educated and do our own research, and not take other people’s words at face value.

There are at least two weeks left of the Depp/Heard trial, and more important than the verdict will be what plays out culturally within the near future, and what people in the public take away from the trial, the media’s portrayal, and the institutions that affect our everyday lives.

1. The main portion of the defamation lawsuit was not in regards to the online article, but to the print version which had a different title and was the one being circulated widely online. It’s been difficult for me to find the actual print article but please keep that in mind

2. Because the Washington Post is located in Virginia, the trial is taking place there since they are part of the lawsuit.

3. I am not using “leftists” as a derogatory term, but a term used by many viewers of the trial. It’s interesting to see whether these people defending Depp are the same people who may have otherwise sided with the #MeToo movement.

4. Remember that actor Terry Crews came forward with his own story and allegations of being sexually assaulted, only to be met with criticisms that “this was not his time or place”. Many men who wanted to be a part of the #MeToo movement and describe their stories of assault were downplayed and excluded from the movement.

5. It’s important to note that the new provisions from the “Dear Colleague” letter targeted nearly anyone on a college campus. One incident includes a lacrosse player who had a consensual relationship with a trainer, who was brought forth under Title IX and eventually left the University, even though the supposed “victim” was adamant that the relationship was consensual. In many instances a consensual relationship can be reported as assault by third party and not take into account the actual rebuttal by supposed victims that they were, in fact, not victims but in a consensual relationship. Many gay men were caught in the crossfires of these provisions as well, with one story about one man being reported by a partner for walking around his [partner’s] dorm room naked without his consent. More importantly, many people realized that the provisions were tailored towards a “first reported; first trusted” basis, meaning that whoever reported an assault to Title IX committees were likely to be considered first. This meant that men who engaged in sexual activities may try to get ahead of any accusations and report an interaction before the partner can.

FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) has covered the issues regarding Title IX and the “Dear Colleague” letter extensively.

6. If you access the ACLU’s website you will see a pro-abortion banner on top arguing that Roe v. Wade is in peril and that people should donate to the ACLU’s fight to protect Roe v. Wade.

7. The New York Times article brings up several comments in regards to many members of the ACLU making similar proclamations in regards to other incidences as well, indicating that this type of ideology may be deeply rooted within the ACLU.

8. The comments are, rightfully, rebutting and criticism the author of the piece.

9. The Sun is a UK tabloid outlet that referred to Johnny Depp as a “wife-beater”. Depp sued The Sun but lost the lawsuit, although there have been many speculations as to the veracity of the verdict.