“My dog stepped on a bee...” Amber Heard recalled in court as she described Johnny Depp physically and sexually assaulting her on one of their vacations as a couple. The clip was shared on TikTok and immediately garnered millions of views, parodies, and ‘interpretive dances’ that have since saturated social media feeds across the world. This is where the circus began.
Even if you did not follow the Amber Heard-Johnny Depp defamation trial, it found you. After the stream began on April 11, 2022, thousands of out-of-context 20-second clips from the courtroom flooded TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter, giving people the false entitlement of feeling like they knew all about the trial without having watched a minute of it.
It didn’t help that most of these videos shared favoured Depp and pilloried Heard with hashtags like #Amberturd and #JusticeForJohnnyDepp.
Johnny Depp and Amber Heard first met while shooting The Rum Diary in 2009. Heard was 25 and Depp was 49 at the time. Romance blossomed in 2012, and by 2015, they were married. Trouble came knocking though when only about a year later in 2016, Heard filed for divorce and a restraining order against Depp, alleging domestic violence. Pictures of Heard’s bruises were widely circulated in 2017; during this time, the #MeToo was gaining steam too. In its wake, Amber Heard published an op-ed in the Washington Post about how she “faced the culture’s wrath by speaking out against abuse”, never once citing Johnny Depp’s name. Depp then sued Heard for defamation based on the article and Heard later countersued arguing that he defamed her when his lawyer accused her of perpetrating an “abuse hoax.”
Before this, Johnny Depp had also sued UK tabloid The Sun for calling him a “wife-beater” in a headline but had lost the case as the judge ruled that Heard’s abuse claims were “substantially true.”
From the beginning of the high-profile televised trial in the USA, a reality TV-like phenomenon started to be observed where statements, reactions, and mannerisms of both the defendant and plaintiff were minutely observed and commented upon. Text messages, photographs, and voice recordings that should otherwise have made for a difficult watch, became easily digestible (and sharable) short, meme-like, out-of-context edits.
Johnny Depp, the more renowned and established actor, and everyone’s favourite ‘Pirate of the Caribbean’, started to gather more sympathy from the audience. Meanwhile, Amber Heard was nitpicked for her expressions, choice of hair and clothes, etc. Most reactions seemed to be based on just the feeling people got by Amber’s testimony— how the ‘vibes felt off.’ Discussion threads began on Twitter and the YouTube comments sections on how it didn’t “seem like she could be a domestic violence victim” because of “the way she recounted her memories.”
‘Body language experts’ on YouTube garnered millions of views overnight for claiming that Heard looking down while she recalled incidents meant they were made up, and law commentary channels pointed out her looking at the jury while she spoke apparently meant that she was trying to “bully” them into listening to her. Social media algorithms are created to reward jumping on trends so there was ample incentive for obscure content creators to jump on the #JusticeforJohnnyDepp bandwagon. New social media accounts sprung up dedicated to discussing the trial. A husband-wife lawyer duo gained thousands of followers overnight on YouTube noting the ‘bad optics’ of Heard drinking water in court while adoring fan edits of Depp smirking with his lawyers or sharing a box of candy. These videos gathered remarkably more views than any in Heard’s favour, and overnight, Heard was the internet’s new favorite villain.
Possible bot activity tweeting incessantly in favour of Depp was also noted by Christopher Bouzy, a techie who runs BotSentinel, a programme dedicated to track bot activity to fight disinformation and targeted harassment.
I never go on the record about our research until we have substantial evidence and data to support our findings. It's why we are a trusted source of information.
— Christopher Bouzy (@cbouzy) June 4, 2022
Last night, I said during an interview, we observed pro-Depp accounts tweeting the same thing. This isn't "organic." pic.twitter.com/wvxUP6OryW
An account that was created 05/25/2022, with 49 followers and two tweets, has a viral tweet with over 94k likes a few days after it was created. Lol... totally organic. pic.twitter.com/28H9wyGg9E
— Christopher Bouzy (@cbouzy) June 4, 2022
The few places on the internet where Heard had support were on Reddit, where subreddits like r/DeuxMoi and r/celebbreakups discussed the trial and largely agreed Amber Heard was telling the truth. In a recent question posted on the sub for Depp supporters who changed their mind, most talked about actually watching and reading evidence than just consuming the trial through the biased algorithm of social media platforms.
Due to the pop-culture fascination with painting Amber Heard as The Liar, most people have overlooked the several witnesses who testified to having seen bruises on her arms and face. Her makeup artist testified to having covered a black eye and cut lip for a TV interview. She has multiple pictures of bruising whose metadata matches the alleged dates of abuse from her testimony.
Another bizarre popular myth is Amber Heard having defecated in Johnny Depp’s bed, a claim that a UK judge said was unlikely to be true, especially since Depp wasn’t even home for the next few days of the alleged incident. “Mr Depp had left that night for his property in Sweetzer. As long as he was away, it was Ms Heard who was likely to suffer from the faeces on the bed, not him. It was, therefore, a singularly ineffective means for Ms Heard or one of her friends to ‘get back’ at Mr Depp,” the judge noted. Depp was also found on record discussing leaving faeces for Heard to find with one of his staffers as a prank — something that has conveniently vanished from the barrage of videos and content around the trial on social media. It was also noted that one of their dogs suffered incontinence and had a history of uncontrolled bowel movements.
Another point that Depp fans hold dearly is his severed finger. However, an orthopedic surgeon in court testified that Johnny’s descriptions were inconsistent with the damage on his finger. He is also recorded on tape saying “the day that I chopped my finger off.”
Recording played. #JohnnyDepp and #AmberHeard.
— Cathy Russon (@cathyrusson) April 21, 2022
Depp: " I"m talking about Austrailia, the day that I chopped my finger off" @LawCrimeNetwork pic.twitter.com/9Jk6zdgKrW
The other ‘damning’ evidence that most internet clips showed was one where Heard was recorded admonishing Depp to claim, “that he, a man, is a victim of domestic abuse, and see how many people believe you.” This has been consumed as a bite-sized out-of-context clip on social media, while the complete recording details Heard expressing fear of the “violence Depp is causing her and her retaliating in self-defense,” while Depp mentions that they both are “at fault” here. This tactic of deflecting blame is quite commonly observed in abusers.
DARVO, an acronym for the tactic involving “Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender” summarises a widely studied manipulation tactic used by perpetrators of abuse. One researcher, Dr Nicole Bedera, explained on Twitter how defamation suits are a legal tool used by perpetrators to silence and intimidate victims, and deflect blame. Closer home, former Indian Union minister, MJ Akbar, did something similar — he filed a defamation suit against journalist Priya Ramani after her #MeToo account implicating him.
Another sexual violence researcher Dr Lily Kay Ross explained how public understanding of the ‘ideal victim’ is one described by another researcher Nils Christie in 1986: one who is “meek, almost Christ-like”, who “heroically accepts and overcomes adversity.” In reality, Dr Ross explains, a victim of sexual violence is more likely to develop coping mechanisms and skills that help them survive in violent situations.
This means various things — including fighting back or choosing to stay with a perpetrator and self-blame. Unsurprisingly, our society is accepting of neither outcome — fight back and you are in the wrong yourself, trudge on and you’re foolish for not leaving the relationship sooner. This is also the reason many women online, claiming to also be victims of abuse refuse to believe Heard, because she is not the ‘perfect victim’.
Televisation of trials is a unique American phenomenon. Other high-profile televised cases like the Ted Bundy and O.J. Simpson trials gathered immense popular reaction in favour of those we now know in hindsight as criminals. The case in support of cameras in a courtroom states that it helps spread judicial education amongst the masses and helps discourage any foul play by the plaintiff or defendant. In actuality, a camera’s presence in the courtroom begets for it a reality TV-like spectacle, one that encourages sensationalised tabloid than actual reportage.
In this case, the multiple camera angles, calculated reaction shots of both parties made it so that the general audience began consuming a serious civil trial as if it were a movie, assigning titular roles to all the characters — Heard as the villain caught in the act, Depp as the redemptive hero, his lawyer Camille Vasquez as the possible love interest, etc.
The camera scrutiny also meant that pressure was on the witnesses to be on the ‘right side,’ with Depp’s witnesses being hailed and two of Heard’s witnesses being harassed online.
After the six-week trial and 2 days of deliberation, the jury ruled in favour of Johnny Depp, stating that Depp was defamed by Heard in her op-ed and also that she had been defamed by one of his lawyers. It is interesting to note that the jury found both parties guilty, a middle ground of sorts, while also giving Depp the upper hand in the verdict, almost as if they were mirroring popular discourse.
It is important to understand that the judicial system in the USA is unlike that of India. Members of the jury are regular people chosen to participate and deliberate on a trial. This being a civil case also meant that the jury was not sequestered — meaning they were not kept isolated from the outside world in a safe place until the trial is over. So, the jury most likely witnessed the full force of social media algorithms just like the rest of us. In the final days of the trial, Heard’s lawyers also requested the presiding judge to conceal the names of members of the jury for at least a year to protect them against the death threats and social repercussions that she and her witnesses were facing online. A jury is more likely to be affected by star power than lawyers and judges who are trained to look at the evidence. This is likely the reason Depp lost in the UK but swept $10 million in damages in the USA.
The Heard-Depp case has become a major talking point for many obscure men’s rights activists and right-wing commentators. India has a similar parallel where a widespread conspiracy alleges that due to strict domestic violence and dowry laws, more women are choosing to ‘take revenge’ on their spouses — a claim statistically untrue and mostly based on rumour-mongering. Most hate directed towards Heard can be found rooted in our society’s internalised misogyny. That it is easier to suspect a woman’s intentions and agency than believe a man’s blatant crimes is the message loud and clear.
Many have claimed this verdict as the death of #MeToo but Tarana Burke, one of the creators of #MeToo, responded on Twitter saying that “the #MeToo movement isn’t dead, the system is” and that our legal system is the one that is unreliable, while the #MeToo movement is still going strong and helping numerous victims of abuse.
— Tarana (@TaranaBurke) June 2, 2022
The way the trial played out as well as the final verdict has set a worrying precedent for future cases related to domestic violence. It is frightening that you don’t even need to mention your abuser’s name and yet you are going to be held responsible for defaming them. As was cited in Amber Heard’s closing statement in court, “if you didn’t take pictures, it didn’t happen. If you did take pictures, they’re fake.” There’s no winning.
Rhea Dangwal is a freelance multimedia journalist who writes about gender, culture, and development. To follow her work, you can visit www.rheadangwal.com.