Opinion |

Civility on Trial in Depp-Heard Defamation Case

In the spectacle that was the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard defamation trial, which recently concluded, incivility was on full display.

It wasn’t just the plaintiff (Depp) or the defendant (Heard) who behaved badly. Both did. But the American public was complicit, voraciously consuming the courtroom drama and callously weighing in on it – less often based on testimony than star power.

On that measure alone, Depp – an actor and musician with a large and loyal fan base – was bound to emerge victorious, at least in the court of public opinion.

If you somehow managed to dodge the story, it began in 2018. Heard wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post calling herself a “public figure representing domestic abuse.” Heard said she had endured years of harassment and assault – but kept quiet, doubting justice would be served.

That changed when Heard became a women’s rights ambassador for the American Civil Liberties Union. She felt compelled to speak out, even knowing she would likely feel “the full force of our culture’s wrath.”

Heard’s op-ed never mentioned Depp by name. The two split in 2016 after a short marriage; when Heard filed for divorce from the actor, she also filed a domestic violence restraining order against him.

In 2019, Depp sued Heard for $50 million, claiming she defamed him, with “seismic” consequences for his life and career. From a legal perspective, defamation is considered a high bar: If a public figure, the plaintiff must prove a statement is not only untrue, but that it was made with malice.

But Depp was undeterred, despite losing a defamation suit against The Sun, a British tabloid, which called Depp a “wife beater.” The judge in that case found Heard’s abuse claims to be substantially true.

The U.S. trial began in April of this year. On the witness stand, Heard described Depp’s violent behavior – fueled by his substance abuse – and the physical and emotional toll it took on her. Depp insisted that Heard was the liar and abuser in the relationship.

Tawdrier than their testimony was the way in which the proceedings played out on social media. Coverage was live, with multiple cameras capturing every word and every reaction. The gallery was packed with Depp supporters, who lined up in the middle of the night to get their seats.

Amanda Hess, a critic at large for The New York Times, noted that the amount of material recorded each day enabled viewers “to examine every inch of the courtroom with a conspiratorial zeal,” creating their own versions of what occurred.

Heard was mocked and reviled; Depp was exalted and cheered. Hess aptly described the courtroom as a movie scene, with actors who had been cast in separate genres: Depp playing the suave comedy hero and Heard, “the histrionic villain from an ‘80s erotic thriller.”

On June 1, after three days of deliberation, the jury found Heard liable on all three claims of defamation. They awarded Depp $15 million in damages, which was reduced to $10.35 million in accordance with Virginia law.

The jury separately found that Depp, through his lawyer, had defamed Heard on one of three claims in her $100 million countersuit. She was awarded $2 million in damages.

Monica Lewinsky gave her own verdict on the Depp-Heard trial in Vanity Fair, saying it signaled the continuing devaluation of our dignity and humanity, especially among social media users.

Lewinsky fairly asked at what point the opinions and actions of “virtual jurors” go too far. She wrote, “(Does our opinion) entitle us to be cruel? Does it entitle us to feel so superior that we can create a meme or a TikTok or a tweet saying something that gets other people to laugh at someone who is already suffering?”

Lewinsky wasn’t talking about freedom of speech but a recognition that we are all human beings – part of a civilized society.

There has also been talk about the trial’s implications for #MeToo, which created a space for women to speak out about harassment and even, name names. Some think the outcome will embolden men and silence women.

But just one day after the Depp-Heard verdict, a New York appeals court upheld Harvey Weinstein’s conviction on rape and assault charges. A five-judge panel unanimously found that the lower court proceedings weren’t prejudiced by the judge in favor of the prosecution. The action against Weinstein was precipitated by the #MeToo movement.

Perhaps there’s hope that #MeToo – and a more civil society – will prevail. But the jury is still out.

Dinkin is president of the National Conflict Resolution Center, a San Diego-based group working to create solutions to challenging issues, including intolerance and incivility. To learn about NCRC’s programming, visit ncrconline.com