Trial by media: Chapter Two – Kevin Spacey

Trial by media: the other side of the coin.

The first was Johnny Depp, whom I considered innocent, versus the media.

This one? Yes, not so much. Thank you, media.

But that’s irrelevant.

Do we in all reality need courts and laws, lawyers and judges, some kind of justice delivered by the state?
Or we can provide our own justice to those we consider guilty of a crime?
These questions are in my mind a lot since last year.
It’s painfully obvious that many people don’t trust the police, the law; don’t trust that courts of law actually service justice. These people use social media and/or the press and we can see them regularly calling out the injustices of the world.
However, what makes a state a state? What makes a democracy a democracy? What makes a person innocent or guilty? Is it what each one of us separately believes and then adding the percentage to reach in a conclusion?

I have followed the Johnny Depp case really closely and -as is known to everyone who reads me- I believe the abuse accusations against him were false. But, there are people out there who believe he abused his ex-wife. There are articles written questioning his right to work having deemed him guilty of domestic abuse without a court ruling.

There are cases I haven’t followed like the Michael Jackson or the Billy Cosby. There are people out there who believe both of them were guilty of the accusations against them. And then there are people who will bring up questions and state that maybe things weren’t like that and they were innocent, mostly in regards to Michael Jackson. But even with a little search anyone can find out that even those who accused Bill Cosby were a bit shady at occasions.

I don’t know much about any of those cases. Do I have an opinion? Can I have an opinion?

I don’t know. Were they guilty? Were they innocent?

Truth be told, we don’t know. But the court found Michael Jackson innocent of the accusations, and Bill Cosby’s trial ended in a mistrial. Take a moment and imagine Michael Jackson child molestation accusations coming out today, in the era of social media. Do you think there would be more people believing he was guilty? Do you think there would be more people coming out accusing him of something?

We can only speculate. But the truth is that even though he was found innocent and most of his fans to this day believe in his innocence, his reputation got a hit and he was never able to fully recuperate from those accusations, was he? Even today, there are articles written taking his guilt for granted (sure it’s daily mail, but you know, people do read the daily main and those people do have opinions they pass around as facts and absolute truth).

Maybe in this case no one lies. But the way society/social media/media took the accusation as granted opens paths for people to get accused and instantly found guilty. Is that a fair trial?

On top of that, personally, as far as I’m concerned I think it is a bit scary that as a society we can’t seem to understand simple terms. Making a sexual advance towards a 14 year old is illegal, especially if it results to having consensual (statutory rape) or non consensual sex (rape), but it is not pedophilia. Also, grabbing crotches and other body parts of the person standing/sitting/working/sleeping next to you without consent is creepy, disgusting, illegal, but it is not rape if you back off -angry, sad, humiliated- when they say no. And these are the actions Kevin Spacey has been accused of as we speak. This may change, but so far that’s it. The one event in which the anonymous accuser claims attempted rape was denied by Kevin Spacey’s lawyer.

I, as a Kevin Spacey fan, feel awful if the actions he’s accused of have actually happened. But, at the same time I feel awful that as a society we have to blow these alleged actions out of proportion to justify an out of proportion enragement. It’s as if society/social media/media cannot criticise and be appalled by what have actually been described as assault incidents, but have to make it bigger in order to create a mob ready to lynch someone, in this case Kevin Spacey. We have seen it happening some months ago with the Last Tango in Paris debate which resulted in people believing Marlon Brando literally raped Maria Schneider under Bernando Bertolucci’s direction. They couldn’t be angry over what had actually transpired, so they made the event something different, more repugnant and, truth be told, juicier as well.

Some of the incidents reported -in great detail and in literary artistry if I dare say so- were used for laughs and giggles in parties and among polite society for years. But, quite suddenly they all became evidence of a predatory sexual behaviour. I honestly cannot say how many of the stories are true or not, I cannot divide them between serious and attention seeking, I cannot know if the most serious accusations are filtered from media for further official investigation.

What I can say with an absolute certainty is that Kevin Spacey’s career specifically and life in general as he knew it has ended. And it’s a result of stories shared in media with no proof. To be careful here, the media may have every evidence needed to prove them. However, the public read stories and only stories.

Proof and evidence may be presented later while officials investigate each and every case, but the matter still stands; he got judged and was professionally killed by media.

In this blog entry (ok, in all blog entries), I present the media as some kind of big, bad meanies that want to destroy reputations and lives. That is not always the case. However, I have observed how media treated the Johnny Depp case and how easily they covered, deleted, pushed under the rug everything that didn’t suit the idea that he was an abusive husband, and in the same manner they deleted every record of Amber Heard’s erratic, lying behaviour. So, I think my reservations are quite plausible and understandable. Because the moment you, a common person of the reading audience,  bring different facts than the ones journalists present as true in their attention you are getting blocked and later on ridiculed and called names -such as abuse apologist, or even even better brainless fangirls -by them. I have watched them trying to push their own ideas and opinions as facts for too long to take anything written as fact.

In relation to everything I wrote above, I have to add that even if Mr. Spacey is guilty of everything he’s accused of and more, so far there is no evidence presented as proof of his illegal activities. So, what stops someone to use the same techniques to destroy an enemy’s reputation and life? What stops someone to create a smear campaign, a character assassination approach to eliminate a political theat for example? Because, as we’ve seen, no evidence is needed for the public to contemn someone.

And at this point is where I remember a lawyer stating after they dropped a PRO request that their client «had been vindicated in the court of public opinion». Their client had just proved she wasn’t afraid to actually go after a PRO, but hey! they were vindicated in the court of public opinion.

I don’t know, maybe I am biased in the sense I wish Kevin Spacey is innocent, but the fact is even I have no doubt he’s guilty. And that little detail here contradicts the presumption of innocence which is -or should be- the accused’s basic, human right.

All cases are different, but sometimes «public opinion» gets the wrong victim. And so do the media.
Mass hysteria, vigilantism, lynching is where I see us going from here.

Also make sure you have no enemies and no one hates you….

 

Advertisements

5 stages of grief. Kevin Spacey

Monday, October 30, 2017

My train of thought changes a lot between yesterday and today….

I am compromised.

I always had a high opinion of… well, my opinion. I thought that I could see an event, a story on its whole and always reach to the correct conclusion and feel OK with myself. One of the reasons I stood so firmly in my opinion that Johnny Depp was innocent was that I was not a fan of his. My liking his work didn’t cloud my judgement because I hadn’t followed his work; I didn’t find him attractive.

So when this morning I woke up to the news that «Kevin Spacey tried to seduce a 14 year old boy» was a hit. Because I do like Kevin Spacey, because I am a fan, because I do find him attractive. And that has been the case since I was a teen.

So what gives?

I tried to find excuses. First, the story is from 31 years ago. Not exactly news. That would help so much to shove it under the rug.
Then I remembered all the rumours that I didn’t want to believe. I remembered defending and supporting him because they were rumours. Apparently though they weren’t rumours.

Truth be told, I never cared about his sexual orientation. I -most of the times- project and consider celebs to be as uninterested in sex as I am. Which, yeah… big-time-projection. Which he helped with his protection of his personal life.

Then I read his tweet. Again, I thought it was an extremely brave thing to do. He apologised. I remember reading an interview of his some 15 years ago (already about a decade old) where he had talked about drugs and alcohol. So, yeah I believe he was drunk. I can believe he was high too. But, he apologised and it’s more than most people do nowadays. See President Trump, for example.

Sex and drugs and scandals is what Hollywood was built on. Nothing new here. Only, this time is a favourite actor of mine. And I am as much disillusioned as much as I don’t want to believe he’s a sexual predator. Then I read Antony Rapp’s telling of the event. (The fact it’s on Buzzfeed doesn’t help, because quite frankly I hate buzzfeed), and…. I don’t know if it’s just as honest as Spacey’s tweet. Again, I question the victim for reasons I don’t understand. I can’t understand what he has to earn by making this public now. Is it to earn something? Or is it to find an inner peace? Or…? Or…?

I end up with the conclusion I don’t care what happened 31 years ago. Which makes me feel disgusted with myself. However, I can’t change that. Even now, for some reason, I find Spacey’s tweet more honest than the Rapp buzzfeed interview. Something is wrong with me, most probably. I permit other cases, I permit personal likes, I permit emotional attachment to a favourite actor cloud my judgement.

I don’t like it.

But, there’s nothing I can do about it.

What makes my reaction worse for me is that if more people come out saying they were assaulted by Kevin Spacey, I will be forced to change my mind. I will be forced to accept reality. I hope there won’t be more people coming out. It doesn’t change what happened to Mr. Rapp in any way, but I do hope I can still keep some semblance of my previous affection to Kevin Spacey as a human being. It will be about me, it’s what I’m saying. And I hate the fact I make this case about me and my feelings.

And it is about him as a human being. As an actor he’s as good today as he was yesterday and that is not going to change if 100 people come out accusing him. As an actor, he’s great.

What about a human being?

 

And even more important? What about me? What kind of human being am I? Am I as selfish and insensitive to think of my own feelings more than those of an alleged victim? I sure am. It comes in contrast with what I believed about myself.

Just another thing I need to work with myself. I recognise I am part of the problem.

All in all, American Beauty is still one of my favourite movies and Verbal Kint one of the best characters in cinema; except, today character and actor seem awfully similar.

_____________________

 

31/10/2017

So today, there is news: House of Cards will run its last season next year (is it cancelled? would it have been the last season either way? news are not particularly clear. Of course, netflix will use the accusation to make itself look «good«. See? They don’t support a pedophile!!! Good people, all around. And, International Emmys tweeted their decision to not honour Kevin Spacey as the plan was because of the «recent events». By recent event, they mean something that took place 31 years ago. Because they are «good» people too. I would guess.

And I’m somewhere between being depressed and being angry.

Hollywood made me love this man for his talent, for his charisma, for he seemed to be a genuinely «good» person whose foundation helped young creative minds. Everyone loved him, everyone praised him, everyone was his friend. And all it took was one public accusation of an event from 31 years ago to throw him to the wolves.

There isn’t much to think. He either didn’t do it or he did do it. And for the sake of this article, I’ll go with the alleged sexual advance to a 14 year old teenager being 100% truth, drunk or not, I don’t care. And for about 50% of the rumours I’ve read through the years being true, as well.

How on Earth didn’t they know? How on Earth am I supposed to believe they didn’t know. How on Earth am I supposed to believe that not all of them are the same as Kevin Spacey is accused to be? If I am to believe -like they did- that he made a sexual advance to a 14 year old kid so easily I also have to believe they all knew. They are all as guilty as he is. So, not good person comes out of it, no matter how much they try to distance themselves from him.

Hollywood seems too eager to get rid of a man who was one of its favourite sons just a few days ago. Hey, don’t touch, it burns. Everyone has or knows a story. But the only one responsible is Kevin Spacey. As if in 1986, Kevin Spacey was a huge name no one could touch. If you can touch him today and throw him to the rubbish can why couldn’t they do it 30 years ago? 25 years ago?

If Kevin Spacey is so bad, so is about 98% of Hollywood and isolating him now that he’s down is crocodilian tears; it’s hypocrisy, it’s fake…. it’s saving their own butts that may be worse than Spacey and Weistein (again, assuming everything said about him is true) put together.

The «system» is not Kevin Spacey; everyone can tell by the way they delete him so easily.

Some of us use movies as more than 2 hours of entertainment. For some of us, these people are inspiration, are a push to try harder, to create better, to reach certain goals. For some of us, Kevin Spacey’s work has saved our lives when we were down and felt numb and lost. And it is too much to put on one man whom we don’t know, but Hollywood helped dramatically at it. It still helps; it still creates role models and inspirational icons.

So, screw you, Hollywood!

_________________________

If it’s true:

I will blame Kevin Spacey & with him, I will blame the kid’s parents, I will blame drugs and alcohol, I will blame those who were at the party. Because Kevin Spacey alone isn’t the system. And he sure wasn’t the «system» when he was 26 years old and no one really knew him outside of Broadway.

 

 

 

Some details:

Making a pass at a 14 year old boy is disgusting.

It’s not pedophilia. It’s not rape. It is statutory rape if you have sex with a person of that age. It is rape if you rape them.
Basically, so far we could have statutory rape that didn’t happen because the kid got up and left on his own. But, what was the intention?
It’s disgusting as it is (if it’s true, but I guess we will never know, will we?), no need to add «pedophilia» in it to make it somehow bigger, dear social media.

I may be adding to this post as more come to light. But I’m not sure I will write another entry for this matter. I’m sad, I’m angry, I’m disappointed by many including myself.

____________________

Or you can always read my previous entries about «innocent until proven guilty». about «scapegoats» or «trials by media». They fit in this case too, except for the details.

The presumption of innocence is still a thing in the civilised world.

 

Edit: Production on «House of Cards» suspended after star Kevin Spacey was accused of sexual assault against a minor 

Edit #1

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

I’m constantly going between OK he’s guilty (to being attracted to a 14 year old) to maybe he isn’t? To what exactly is he guilty of? To the rumours that he’s coming a bit too hard to the men he’s attracted to? To be sexually attracted to minors? So far, and to my knowledge no criminal act has taken place.

Morality wise? Hey! It’s Hollywood!

I will accept that Kevin Spacey is guilty. Let’s hang him for all I care. I’ve lost my apetite (and let me tell you, with my eating disorder, it is not good for my health) since I’ve read about the news. Because he was an inspiration, he was someone who managed to succeed when all odds were against him. In the grant scheme of things, my broken heart doesn’t matter.

What it does matter in my humble opinion are two things.

1. Say Spacey is guilty ok? He could deny the event because there was no evidence. It happened 30+ years ago. There’s no evidence. Also, there was no physical harm done so even if there was an investigation back then there would be no evidence. But, I take his statement as an admission that it might have happened. What if he had denied it? What if he was innocent? What if it was an accident and the years passed had turned something innocent into something illegal (having sex with a minor is statutory rape, even if the minor agrees to it, and I’m not even certain what the age of consent for gay men was in the mid 80s).

But let’s keep Spacey out of it for a while. How does an innocent person defends themselves against an accusation of this kind for an event that took place 30 years ago? Is everyone guilty by default? Do they protect themselves with a defamation lawsuit? Wouldn’t that be considered «victim-shaming»? At that point is one person’s against other people’s and the moment someone is accused, they are fair game in social media. Their side doesn’t matter; their point of view doesn’t matter.

They are guilty and cannot prove their innocence. Because there’s no court, there’s no justice to rule anything.

So, what is a lynch mob? What can be described as witch-hunts in the 21st century?

2. As I mentioned yesterday, movie and theatre industry in general and their attitude towards these accusations. If Kevin Spacey is guilty of the accusation thrown at him, I find it impossible to believe they didn’t know. I find it impossible to believe they instantly believe the accusation without a second thought and instantly take matters to basically elimininate Kevin Spacey from their ranks. Netflix suspends production of House of Cards, The Old Vic made a rather unconvincing official statement about the alleged incident.

 

Statement on behalf of The Old Vic

The Old Vic would like to respond to recent media reports by making it clear that we are deeply dismayed to hear the allegations levied against Kevin Spacey, who was Artistic Director from 2004–2015.

Inappropriate behaviour by anyone working at The Old Vic is completely unacceptable. We aim to foster a safe and supportive environment without prejudice, harassment or bullying of any sort, at any level, as set out in our joint statement with the theatre industry on 23 October. We want our employees to feel confident, valued and proud to be part of The Old Vic family. Any behaviour we become aware of which contravenes these goals will not be tolerated.

If you have been connected with The Old Vic or in our employment and feel you have a complaint that you were unable to raise, please contact us on confidential@oldvictheatre.com. Any experience shared will be treated in the utmost confidence and with sensitivity. We have appointed external advisors to help us deal with any information received.

People in social media want House of Cards to continue its production without Kevin Spacey with Robin Wright in the lead role. Interesting proposal that exonorates everyone else. Because his colleagues didn’t know, am I right? His behaviour went unnoticed for the half a decade they worked together. Yes? What? No?

If Kevin Spacey is guilty by default then the whole industry is guilty as well.

That at least is my very humble opinion.

Rosie O’ Donnell attacked Kevin Spacey on twitter for some weird (IMO) reason.

rosie

I also didn’t know hitting on «many, many, many men» is a crime.

My apologies, but I also think the LGBT community is angry at him for not coming out sooner so he could be the community’s spokesperson when he was at the high of his career? And now, it’s the right time for the community to take its revenge.

And I wonder, say he had come out when he won his second Academy Award for American Beauty (shut up, Hollywood didn’t know about him being a creepy gay man hitting on many, many, many men back then). How that would make the allegations against him any better now?

I’m confused.

No I’m not confused. I see hypocrisy left, centre and right.

 

~~~~
I could link to tweets and articles, but I’ve read most of those before I’ve attempted to sleep and didn’t keep them. Truth be told, I don’t care enough to go searching again….

PS. The presumption of innocence is still a thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reporters. Real ones–not bloggers.

«Behind this door is a room full of reporters. Real ones–not bloggers.»
Tony Stark, Spiderman – Homecoming

One of the best lines of the film and Tony Stark. And that says a lot because it’s the Tony Stark. I realised in retrospect that bloggers were enraged with Marvel about this line. I wasn’t. I absolutely loved it. It’s true. I have a blog, I blog…. I do it for me, to put my thoughts out there. But I -in a way- agreed with it.

Where did I disagree with it?

The problem as I see it is that «real journalists» are becoming bloggers. All the opinion pieces point to the fact they are not journalists. They are bloggers. They share their -more often than not, biased- opinions. But they think they are journalists.

Under the scope of «hey! it’s my personal opinion» they can spead their uninformed opinions as facts. The more readers they have, the more their opinion is taken as truth. It happens with both bloggers and journalists, both in social media and media.

«Code of Ethics» or the «Canons of Journalism»

While various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public.

Like many broader ethical systems, journalism ethics include the principle of «limitation of harm.» This often involves the withholding of certain details from reports such as the names of minor children, crime victims’ names or information not materially related to particular news reports release of which might, for example, harm someone’s reputation.

Some journalistic codes of ethics, notably the European ones,also include a concern with discriminatory references in news based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and physical or mental disabilities. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe approved in 1993 Resolution 1003 on the Ethics of Journalism which recommends journalists to respect the presumption of innocence, in particular in cases that are still sub judice.

 

Journalism is guided by five important values.

Five Core Principles of Journalism

1. Truth and Accuracy

Journalists cannot always guarantee ‘truth’, but getting the facts right is the cardinal principle of journalism. We should always strive for accuracy, give all the relevant facts we have and ensure that they have been checked. When we cannot corroborate information we should say so.

2. Independence

Journalists must be independent voices; we should not act, formally or informally, on behalf of special interests whether political, corporate or cultural. We should declare to our editors – or the audience – any of our political affiliations, financial arrangements or other personal information that might constitute a conflict of interest.

3. Fairness and Impartiality

Most stories have at least two sides. While there is no obligation to present every side in every piece, stories should be balanced and add context. Objectivity is not always possible, and may not always be desirable (in the face for example of brutality or inhumanity), but impartial reporting builds trust and confidence.

4. Humanity

Journalists should do no harm. What we publish or broadcast may be hurtful, but we should be aware of the impact of our words and images on the lives of others. (A/N: even if we talk about the life of a rich, white man)

5. Accountability

A sure sign of professionalism and responsible journalism is the ability to hold ourselves accountable. When we commit errors we must correct them and our expressions of regret must be sincere not cynical. We listen to the concerns of our audience. We may not change what readers write or say but we will always provide remedies when we are unfair.

The Depp/Heard scandal last year and the way it was dealt by media was a huge slap to all five core Principles of Journalism. And journalists/media are unwilling to take responsibility for it. The values have been disappeared under the pretence of «freedom of speech», and if a reader brings up the matter of slander, they will reply with something along the lines of «hey! it’s satire, not slander». Thing is they have taken all their values and thrown them to the rubbish bin.

And if we talk about bloggers the situation is far worse. The need to have their opinion be the truth is outstanding. Their misinformed, totally biased opinion becomes truth™; it becomes reality. And as their truth™ spreads around, more and more people embrace it (because it helps keep the bias alive) the real truth is hidden because it doesn’t fit a certain narration. The real truth is harmful because it comes in contrast to what they present as true so they are going to hide it under the carpet all the while guilt-tripping those who want to present facts. When facts don’t support their truth they delete them as unworthy.

There is the self-centreness and entitlement in the bloggers’ stance. They don’t like a fictional movie character, they’ll write an article about why everyone doesn’t like the specific character, all the while ignoring those who like said character as unimportant. They take half the entertainment away with their bias and prejudice.

After a while though, they cannot seperate fictional and real. Hating a real person, attempting to delete their professional and personal existence using their manifactured truth™ while guilt-tripping others is dangerous and akin to propaganda. The fact they disregard facts to support their opinion means there’s nothing naive or innocent about their behaviour. They know facts, they choose to ignore them because they don’t fit with their narration.

«And we learned about the critical importance of propaganda, the deliberate misinforming of the public in order to sway opinions en masse and achieve popular support (or at least the appearance of it).»

 

Hannah Arendt wrote in her 1951 Origins of Totalitarianism, going on to elaborate that this “mixture of gullibility and cynicism… is prevalent in all ranks of totalitarian movements»:

«The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.»

Gaslighting:

«The result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth and truth be defamed as a lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world—and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end – is being destroyed.»

In the Depp case, you are going to be told he’s a rich, middle aged, white man aka privileged and his victim is a young (/er than him) bisexual, not as rich woman aka not as privileged as he is. So he’s the bad guy by default, you know? You just have to believe her because of…. reasons. You can’t question the lies because… you are «victim blaming», because you are an «abuse apologist». So her lies are not to be questioned. Because in their mind Heard is the face of a minority; bisexual women.

I don’t care if the above supports a minority (actually it just supports one person who’s in the habit of lying) when the tactics used are the same as Totalitarianism.

There are certain values that make society instead of chaos.

Innocent until proven guilty, is one of them. Lies are to be questioned, is another.

If you cannot support your opinion without generalisations and lies, but still try to force it as truth (by verbally abusing others) you are dangerous. And I don’t give a damn if you support a minority. Your end doesn’t justify your means.

So yes, I’m with Tony Stark there, and I hope journalists will soon realise they hurt their profession.
Their personal opinion should be based on facts and objectivity. It’s why I pay to read them.

And I will repeat it;

these methods are dangerous.
Spreading lies to support an opinion is dangerous.
Showing disregard about the truth is dangerous.

Bloggers and journalists’ self importance becomes dangerous.

I’m afraid of the narcissism of politicians.
I cannot worry about the narcissim of another Estate that impacts society.

 

  1. The Origins of Totalitarianism [x]
  2. Journalism ethics and standards
  3. Five Principles of Journalism

Enlightenment versus Social Media

We are the generations of lazy liars.

Social media generations are lazy liars.

And I say this with absolute knowledge of the words I use.

People will say things and as long as is the ‘right’ thing to say at a given time, people will be applaud and celebrated for fighting the good cause.

The reason why I use Johnny Depp as an example is because I know the case really well; I can recognise the lies and use sources to prove they are lies. However, and that’s the saddest part isn’t it? however, lies don’t start and end with Johnny Depp. They are everywhere around us; coming from all sides, the good and the bad.

You’ll be surprised how many lies people say in the name of the ‘good‘. I used to be naive and believe it was due to ignorance and the need to support an abuse victim. That is not the case.

If someone believes Amber Heard was a victim of domestic violence or abuse at the hands of Johnny Depp because of x evidence they found on the internet eg. bruised face photos and the video «released» (sic) on TMZ, my reply is OK. I may explain how none of this alone proves he was violent or abusive towards her, but it’s an opinion based on facts. The photos exist. The video exists.

And even if they don’t want to see the other side, again, I’m -almost- OK with their decision to err on the side of the alleged victim. As long as they don’t give a damn they may err at the expense of an innocent man possibly falsely and maliciously accused of domestic violence there’s nothing for me to say. It’s their choice.

You know? What can I do?

But here come the lies. So many of them shared in social media and media alike. With no intention of taking them back even when they are called out for those. If they were honest mistakes, they would take them back since they are offered all kinds of proof that what they say it’s a lie. They never do.

It’s easy to say «I was wrongly informed. What I wrote was false and I apologise» even if they still continue to have the same opinion.

They never do.

They take their cue from media, so who can blame them?

Everybody should blame them.

Just because inside their own head they do something in the name of good (if even that, not so certain any more; sometimes I think the idea behind the lies is to get more followers; good cause —-> lies to support it —–> followers) doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good.

The whole «I was a Johnny Depp fan until he abused his wife so now I hate him» doesn’t give anyone a badge of honour if they support their hate with lies.

The whole «Women get abused and a. police doesn’t care, b. society doesn’t care, c. plus d or whatever» doesn’t make the lies anything more than lies.

Lies are still lies.

My intention isn’t to call specific people out for their lies; I use as an example but I will cover their name.

Basically:

Step one:

Bring Johnny Depp’s name into a story that has nothing to do with him.

Why? Come on, you’re intelligent people! Because his name sells, either as a loved actor, or the scapegoat of the decade.

  1. L’Oreal fired their model because of her post in facebook.
  2. Dior on the other hand, uses Johnny Depp, among other stars, in their LoveChain Campaign.

1

χιλ. means thousands (it’s greek)

My very personal opinion is that in this demonised «western world of racism» people of all races, sexual orientation, genders etc have the right to speak, to protest, to demonstrate, to fight for their rights. Europe had its Enlightenment some centuries ago.

I don’t know if the non white, non western world is less racist though and more tolerant of their minorities (which arguably is white people). Now, don’t get me wrong, we have our problems, our racists, our bigots, our haters, but «all white people» are not born in UK or USA. People in Europe are racists towards white people of different ethnicities; half of Christian Europe has been under the Ottoman Empire for centuries until World War I. People in Asia may have a different take in regards to racism as well. So this Anglo-American centric way of seeing things is insulting to the rest of us, non Anglo-Americans, who haven’t conquered the world in over a millennium, but have been conquered by people of a different non-Christian religion (that Americans would most probably describe as non-white but they themselves very wisely use their ethnicity instead of what colour their skin has) or were occupied by the Nazis in World War II. So, no my friend, not «all white people are racists» but rather «all people are racists» or more wisely «some people from all races and ethnicities may be racists».

All people who will find themselves on a state of power/control over others have the capacity of using their power to oppress others.

Whether you agree with me or with her, it doesn’t matter. The thing is she wrote that post.

So, why would anyone put these two cases together? Let me think, likes and retweets and more followers?

Do you know what hasn’t happened? Johnny Depp was never found guilty of domestic violence. (I have a great number of posts about the subject so I won’t be repeating myself.)

So the blogger who made the post got some replies informing them of facts that explain that not one of us knows if Johnny Depp actually abused Amber Heard (as opposed to the posts in facebook that actually happened). What does blogger do?

Step two: lie.

2

No, I wouldn’t think of calling them an idiot, they’ re just a liar.

Lie #1.

Depp was never found innocent. He settled and used his money to evade the law.

Don’t know where blogger comes from, but in the bad western world, you don’t prove innocence. You aren’t found innocent. You are found either guilty, or not guilty.

There is a little something called Presumption of Innocence -a.k.a. the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies- is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. And, Depp was never proven guilty.

Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must collect and present compelling evidence to the trier of fact.

To add to this, I’m not exactly certain in what legal case Depp could have been found innocent, to be totally honest. His ex wife didn’t press charges against him, she didn’t file a report and the ‘incident’ which caused the DVRO request (that was granted temporarily) was investigated twice by the LAPD. Both times stated there was no evidence of abuse.

There was a hearing for a P(ermanent)R(estraining)O(rder)  , but she dropped it in August 11, 2016. They settled their divorce in August 16, 2016. That’s five days later. A working week, in my country. She took money for the divorce. The money she received had nothing to do with the abuse accusations because she had already dropped her PRO request.

(Little titbit you will find in the PRO link: «The person seeking a permanent restraining order does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such an order is necessary. Rather, at this type of hearing, the petitioner need only demonstrate that clear and convincing evidence exists to suggest that the respondent has threatened the petitioner and that a permanent restraining order is necessary to protect the interests and welfare of the petitioner.» A.K.A. not that hard to get one if your life is actually in danger or if you’re really in fear for your life)

Lie #2.

& is now suing his ex manager for corroborating Heard’s story.

Johnny Depp launched a 25 million-dollar court action against his former business managers in January 14. He has filed a lawsuit against The Management Group (TMG) over claims he has been the victim of «gross mismanagement» which has cost him «tens of millions of dollars».

According to documents filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court, Depp, claimed the company and its owners, Joel and Robert Mandel, failed to properly pay his taxes, made unauthorised loans and overpaid for security and other services.

He has filed 11 complaints, including fraud, breach of contract and professional negligence, and is seeking damages of more than 25 million dollars.

The complaint states: «As a result of years of gross mismanagement and sometimes outright fraud, Mr Depp lost tens of millions of dollars and has been forced to dispose of significant assets to pay for TMG’s self-dealing and gross misconduct.

«In essence, TMG treated Mr Depp’s income as their own, available to either TMG or third parties to draw upon as desired.»

In countersuit, Johnny Depp’s former business managers alleged extravagant spending in the end of January. In May 1, they amended their countersuit & claimed they were «informed and believe» Johnny Depp «became physical towards his ex wife». [x]

Chronologically speaking, Mr. Depp sued his former managers first, before they made many claims against him, some of which were proven lies e.g. ear piece in their COUNTERsuit.

A tweet consists of 140 characters; I cannot for the life of me understand how someone can fill it with such lies. All in the name of good.

This person, presumably has a moral ground, right? They are fighting for a good cause, right? For equality and against racism!

Only they kid themselves. They support their -questionable to begin with- opinion with lies, slandering a man, hurting a man’s reputation with lies. Knowingly. There’s nothing naive, nothing innocent in their tweets. Just lies.

This is how two causes (anti-racism & pro-equality) are harmed. How can I believe this person ever again? Or anyone else who liked/retweeted them?

If they are so certain about their opinion why lie?

4

This is how social media activism takes place; «I fill space with lies and then mute everyone else. Because basically I hate the western world where democratic ideas were born».

All in the name of good.

____________________

PS. And more lies just for the heck of it:

5

Sorry for the sloppy covering. I had turned off my photo editing programme when I saw this.

There is literally no video of a drunk Johnny Depp throwing a wine bottle at Amber Heard’s head on the internet. Trust me, if there was there would also be thousands of screencaps and gifs proving it. What’s another lie in the grant scheme of things, after all?

Why I defend Johnny Depp

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won’t be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
The blizzard, the blizzard of the world
has crossed the threshold
and it has overturned
the order of the soul
When they said REPENT REPENT
I wonder what they meant

Leonard Cohen

Johnny Depp. I didn’t start as a fan of his, his work never saved my life, his generosity never helped me. Fourteen months ago, I could watch a film of his on TV and not tell it was him.

Let me start with why I don’t defend him.

  1. I don’t defend him because he’s pretty.
  2. I don’t defend him because he played Jack Sparrow.
  3. I don’t defend him because of his sex appeal.
  4. I don’t defend him because he’s rich, or white or male.

 

I defend him because those who attack him lie, either blatantly or by omission.

  1. The reason I defend Johnny Depp is media. It may sound weird, but that’s the truth. And if you have to lie or hide part of the facts to support your opinion something is wrong with your opinion.
  2. The reason I defend Johnny Depp is because I see his case separately from the plague that domestic abuse is.

If you have ever read one article about how «Amber did everything a victim is supposed to do & we still didn’t believe her«, you’ve read all of them.

They start with the «everything a victim is supposed to do» a.k.a. she called the police, she catalogued her «abuse», she asked for a TRO (and we still didn’t believe her) and gave away the money thus she was not a gold digger. They will mention the «Neither party made accusations for financial gain» to further point out how bad I am for not believing her.

VOX, HuffingtonPost, Variety, Vogue, SlashFilm, Eonline and many more came up with articles of opinions from the good people who did believe her claims and are so proud of themselves that are not part of the «bad society» who didn’t believe her. They make all sort of assumptions of why we didn’t believe her.

And you know what? I won’t lie. They have a point. I doubt most of the people who didn’t believe her spent their time reading court docs, following every aspect of the case to form an opinion on the matter. They just didn’t believe her. And that’s bad.

That’s not why I (and all the people I personally met) don’t believe her.

Do you know what else is bad? Just because «society» doesn’t believe victims of abuse for x reasons, doesn’t mean we don’t get to question those who claim abuse, their motives, their evidence, or their honesty.

The reason I don’t believe Amber Heard was abused by Johnny Depp is her lack in the latter; her evidence was questionable and she flat out lied.

I don’t tend to believe someone who blatantly lies because someone else hasn’t lied.

I won’t believe Amber Heard was abused because other women have been abused. I don’t really understand how that helps us move forward as society.

Is Johnny Depp’s life and reputation forfeit on behalf of all abuse victims who weren’t believed despite the fact they were abused? What about THEIR abusers? Why does Johnny Depp have to pay for that?

In the articles of how «Amber Heard did everything a victim is supposed to do»,

I read: «Amber Heard called the Police»

vs

I don’t read: «The police saw no evidence of a crime & the police officers were in Johnny Depp’s witness list, alongside their audio tapes of the call.»

Either Amber Heard or the police officers (and the concierges, neighbours, stuff) lie. And say, I give you that, the police officers were corrupted and lied to protect Mr. Depp, even though they didn’t know it was his residence. How about Ms. Heard’s actions? They say she called the police, but she didn’t want to let them check the area, and when they did there was no sign of abuse. What exactly did she succeed by calling the police other than saying «she called the police»?

 

I read: «Amber Heard had photos, video that proved the abuse

vs

I don’t read: «Amber Heard’s photos & videos were never examined by any expert who could prove their authenticity

I have said it before, I will say it again, evidence not examined by court experts are not evidence. Bruises not examined by doctors and bruises that tend to change places and/or suddenly disappear or some people see them some people don’t see them need to be questioned. I don’t say they weren’t real. I say they are questionable, at the very least.

I read: «Amber Heard had text messages with Depp’s assistant that were verified by an expert even thought his assistant denied it.»

vs

I don’t read: » The expert authenticated the backups (screenshots) of the texts, not the authenticity of the messages. Stephen Deuters denied he’s ever witnessed Mr. Depp being abusive towards Ms. Heard and was willing to testify in court that the texts were doctored. Ms. Heard had neither the backups, nor the texts, nor Mr. Deuters in her exhibit/witness list. Mr. Depp’s attorney claimed Ms. Heard was uncooperative in providing her evidence to his side«.

 

I read: «She had witnesses to support her claims.»

vs

I don’t read: «The witnesses lived next door to Depp/Heard residence but never witnessed him being abusive towards her. They witnessed the aftermath of the abuse. Their affidavits are either contradictory or one seem copy/paste of the other. Johnny Depp had witnesses too. Witnesses that saw her being violent towards him and witnesses who saw her without any bruises the days after the alleged incident

b

a

I read: «Amber Heard & Johnny Depp settled the case and she donated the money to charities«.

vs

I don’t read: «Amber Heard dropped her PRO request, a day before its hearing, and then she and Mr. Depp settled their divorce. She promised to donate the money to charities«.

I don’t read: «Amber Heard asked for divorce without mentioning any abuse while she sent a blackmail letter to Mr. Depp a couple of days after his Mother passed away.»

letter a

letter b.PNG

In this letter she/her lawyer describes the abuse & claims she wants to keep the divorce private and amicable as long as he pays her up. When opinion articles declare she didn’t do it for money (she promised to donate, after all, and ah… joint statement» they think we have the -metaphorically speaking- memory of a goldfish (A/N: yes, I know it’s a myth, but I like the simile) and we forget the «extortion letter«. She asked for money/car/penthouses and he to keep paying for them to keep the abuse private. Or she would ask for a DVRO. Do you know what’s missing from that letter? Her wish for him to stay away from her. Sure, he was in Europe touring with his band at the time, but if he had paid her up she wouldn’t have asked for a DVRO so I guess she thought he’d stay in Europe and never return to USA? I mean, someone, in those opinion articles, who believes he abused her, explain to me: where exactly would the fear for her life have gone if he had paid her? It’s not as if she did it to blackmail him! No! She was in fear. A fear that would go away if he paid her. But…. she didn’t do it for money.

I’m dizzy. It makes no sense. Not to me at least.

If you see anywhere in this letter her lawyer asking Depp to stay away from her because she’s afraid, please point me there. On the contrary, she asks «with Johnny to continue to make all payments for any encumbrances thereon” for the range rover and “with Johnny to continue to pay mortgage, utilities etc., associated therewith” for the penthouses; so, in other words, she demands to keep having a financial relationship with him. Or she will ask for a DVRO. Because she’s afraid of Johnny, and make no mistake.

Still dizzy.

But hey! “Amber is afraid of Johnny” so there’s that.

I don’t read: «Amber Heard hasn’t donated money yet.»

I don’t read: «Amber Heard didn’t want the police involved.»

I don’t read: «Amber Heard didn’t know why people saw her with no bruises.»

I don’t read: «Amber Heard tried to avoid her deposition many times, through lying and deception and temper tantrums. Amber Heard dropped her PRO request before she realised she had to be deposed either way.»

I don’t read: «Amber Heard dropped her PRO request after she ran a smear campaign in tabloids.»

She sold photos to People magazine (that were not part of her evidence list), her friend iO Tillet Wright wrote an essay for refinery29 in which he contradicted her (why did he call the police? Because «she never would?» or because «she yelled to him to call the police?»), leaked/sold the unverified texts between herself and supposedly Mr. Depp’s assistant, Stephen Deuters (not on her evidence list either), sold (according to TMZ’s Harvey Levin) a video to TMZ , leaked the mirror photo/finger injury story (after she signed to drop the PRO) that made no sense other than ridiculing Mr. Depp. And then she went on becoming the face «against domestic violence» who urged her «silent sisters» to talk about their abuse, in the meantime promoting no other than herself.

And while she refused to be deposed again and again, postponing the PRO hearing, she realised she was too tired by all of it. So, she dropped it. Just a day before she had to prove the abuse. Convenient .

Because let’s not forget the extortion letter where her lawyer claims:

she strongly insists we do everything possible to keep this personal matter out of the media spotlight

 

I’m sorry, dear ladies & gents of the opinion articles, but all I see is a hypocritical, self-centred, aggressive attitude of a woman focusing on her image and media rather than proving her accusations.

I don’t read: «Yes, that straight line bruise was a bit questionable because blood doesn’t work that way, Iphone bruises don’t work that way either, especially when thrown to another person instead of… well, I don’t know, sleeping on them?»

I read: «Johnny Depp was jealous of his bisexual wife. He’s homophobic, biphobic, misogynistic etc» with absolutely no evidence to back these assertions (sic).

Lastly, one of the most important things

I don’t read: «Amber Heard openly lied about his charitie’s interests when he donated the money on her name. She lied about him having a « novel interest in supporting two of her favourite charities… This is great and unexpected news» and ««Anything less would be a transparent attempt by Johnny’s counsel, Laura Wasser and Patti Glaser, to reduce their client’s true payment by half under the guise of newfound concern for charities that he has never previously supported«.

It was a lie easily debunked, considering one of those charities (CHLA)  had awarded him in 2006 «because he puts smiles on the faces of thousands of children through his great work on film, and his longtime private advocacy of children and children’s charities is nothing short of inspirational,» that was still said with no shame. And Johnny Depp never gave an answer to it. Same as he never gave an answer to anything else, other than to claim through his publicist that the accusations were not true.

When her side lies so blatantly over something like this, what stops them to lie over… everything?

And until I read an opinion piece in which all the above are listed and explained as why they are everything «a victim of abuse is supposed to do» instead of a controlling individual’s methods to put fear on their victim, I will keep defending Johnny Depp. Because if he’s innocent (which I believe he is) he is the victim of a vindictive woman (and her pals), of media, and of those who are jealous he has more money to spend than them. Still, not an abuser.

I can disregard all the above and decide to condemn Johnny Depp as an example because he’s rich and famous. But, let me tell you, it won’t stop abusers. And it will also enable liars. So what is there to gain by condemning a possibly innocent man?  Victims following Ms. Heard’s example will find themselves in dire situations.

The reason I defend Johnny Depp? It’s because Amber Heard’s behaviour and media/social media made him the victim. And damn it, I will always support the victim.

 

 

 

Prejudice in media/opinion articles

New York Post’s «Why does Johnny Depp still have a career?» or as it was previously titled «Johnny Depp will soon be as reviled as Bill Cosby» is going to be my today tear-it-down-and-loving-it-piece of the day.

«SINKING TO NEW DEPPS»  is the printed version title. (unless an opinion piece has three titles you’re doing it wrong)

whole article.PNG

It is an opinion article. So I’m just going to share my opinion on it.

Which title do you think is worse? The first or second?

I don’t know much about the Bill Cosby case, only that many women accused him of drugging them and sexually assaulting them. Recently, his case ended in a mistrial.

I won’t go searching for what happened in that case. For one reason and one reason alone:  it is a different case than Johnny Depp’s. Regardless if Cosby is guilty or not (he wasn’t found guilty), there were more than one woman accusing him for sexual assault.

In Johnny Depp’s case, which didn’t go to trial, it was one woman who accused him of domestic violence. The whole case was his ex wife asking for a restraining order and the hearing never took place because she withdrew her request.

Two totally different cases put in one title because… apparently it saddles «the rich and the famous men of show business together as the big bad men who abuse women» in one go. Both the men and the women become «the face of» a social problem instead of individuals of certain cases. We don’t research, criticise each case individually (oh no no no! that’s «victim blaming, victim shaming & abuse apologism»)

First title had no happy end and changed into «Why does Johnny Depp still have a career?» And if your reaction to it is «Why shouldn’t he have a career?» the author educates us on the subject matter.

To be quite honest, you could read my «Trial by media/social media» entry & be done with it as Ms. Wright managed to add everything I describe there in her article.

So let’s dissect it, shall we?

The author mentions Johnny Depp’s joke about the President’s assassination just becauseit’s led many to wonder if this will end his career.’

By «many» the author means Trump supporters.

  1. Johnny Depp apologised for his joke. Not many people do that nowadays. Most importantly the President of the United States doesn’t do it today. And boy, does he have many things to apologise for! Sure he has, just look in his twitter if not his political actions.
  2. Does the author care about Trump supporters? Unless, she’s one of them I doubt it.

«Why does Johnny Depp still has a career?»

&

«Johnny Depp is an increasingly incompetent actor who probably, in my view, beat his ex wife.»

Why Johnny Depp shouldn’t have a career? Because of two reasons:

See how she phrases this? She mentions two things:

a. Johnny Depp is an increasingly incompetent actor, which we should take as fact because of

b. in her view, beat his ex wife.

a.versus b.

one is stated as fact (let’s be clear here) one is stated as opinion (in my view).

The author keeps herself safe from a libel lawsuit. Because she’s coward that way and no one can sue her for thinking Johnny Depp is a bad actor, but he sure as hell can sue her for stating as fact he beat his wife. But, let’s be clear here, she does take it as fact.

And we continue with the same old, fairy tale that showed no dragon, no Wicked Witch of the West and definitely no Dorothy either.

«I’ll get you, my pretty- and your little dog too! HAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA»

She continues with the recent (May 2017) court docs, in which Mr. Depp’s ex managers claim “the actor had gotten physical with Heard and violently kicked her”.

I never wrote an entry about the recent legal docs because I never thought anyone would or could take them seriously. They come from the people Mr. Depp sued for mismanaging his money and fraud. But people/media did take them seriously. The exact same people never considered to write about Mr. Depp’s side/legal docs in the PRO case and take them as seriously. I wonder why…. I know why.

In this case, and while the trial is still on, when journalists take anything his former managers say as granted are…. that’s right, they «victim-shame» Johnny Depp.

Amber Heard’s legal documents from a year ago where she claimed she was abused are also brought to present and we continue with the tale of the strong heroine who fell victim of the vile man’s antics, but by the female power of hers she kept proof of the abuse (used to blackmail him), and then, transforming herself into a heavenly being donated the money she took from big bad villain to poor children…. (as far as we know she hasn’t yet).

But that was not the end, because in this fairy tale there was no happy ending & the big bad society still called our lovely heroine a gold digger who tried to blackmail big bad Depp.

According to the author of the article the extortion letter our heroine’s lawyer sent to our villain’s lawyer is a figment of our imagination. Yep, we imagined it. Never happened.

The worst part in this?

«If you ever wonder why women in abusive relationships are reluctant to come forward, this is why. They get defamed even when they have documented proof.»

This is where my blood starts boiling. If any victim did what Amber Heard did (extort while still living in his house with no Temporary Restraining Order, sell her proof, ridicule him, call the police when he sent his people to get his stuff from his place & openly lying about his charitie’s interests* among other things) and there was an abuser in her life, things wouldn’t have ended well for her. Amber Heard had some questionable (because she sold them to tabloids) texts, photographs and a heavily edited video never examined by any court expert circulating the internet and earning money of it. And her BFFs claiming they saw the aftermath of the abuse. Police, impartial witnesses were on his side. But, but, but…. big bad Depp. He probably paid them to lie. No wait, his ex managers also claim he’s broke. So he had to follow a different method and he had «pressured and berated his assistant to falsely challenge» her claims. Say the ex managers. Upcoming citizens that they are, we believe them. Same as we believed the ear piece little thing and heroised the other heroine, Ms. Chastain. And was proven it was a lie. Alas, who cares?

«Women get defamed even when they have documented proof»

What do they -men or women- use this documented proof for is another matter alltogether that never comes into debate nowadays. Amber Heard’s «documented proof» was never examined by experts. I’m going to repeat this until my fingers bleed, if I have to. A woman’s safety is important. A man’s reputation, job prospects ruined over false accusations is just as important. We need to know if the accusations are true or not. The only way to know is for the «documented proof» to be examined by forensic scientists. And Ms. Heard never let (yes, she didn’t permit it) anyone to examine her «documented proof». This isn’t me defaming her. This is me expecting to treat everyone’s lives equally.

And there’s the detail of his own evidence that the court didn’t see because she dropped her PRO request.

Who cares about his proof? Who cares if he is the victim here? Who cares if the police saw no evidence of abuse? Who cares if Mr. and Mrs. Deuteurs support Mr. Depp? Who cares if Ms. Heard sold her evidence to tabloids? Who cares if she did try to blackmail  Mr. Depp and only yelled abuse when he refused her demands? Who cares if she never showed any kind of fear of him but tried to control and ridicule and destroy him publicly? Who cares if she dropped her PRO request a few days before its hearing when her «documented proof» of her abuse would be examined? His evidence too? Who cares if several months later she wanted to reopen the case to get more money?

Not the author of this article, that’s for certain. There’s the heroine and there’s the big bad wolf and no one can question those roles.

«Historically, a lot of excuses were made for great artists who were also abusive toward women. (Here’s looking at you, Roman Polanski.) But Johnny Depp isn’t a great artist.»

Yes, she went there; she went to Roman Polanski’s case. Because, again if we can’t deal with this case alone we bring a lot more cases to prove our point.

Historically…. we can start from ancient Greece when Aspasia was being called names as Pericles’ partner to… well,  Amber Heard.

«Maybe he was a truly great talent before he started spending $30,000 a month on wine (again, according to his former business managers). But for the last decade he’s lurched from failure to mediocrity to failure.»

VICTIM SHAMING, victim shaming, victim shaming…. like big victim shaming.

You know talent goes away when people stop watching you? With this kind of thinking people like Kim Kardashian are far more talented than Johnny Depp. What? I follow the author’s -kind of ridiculous- train of thought. Also, screw you, the Tourist was nice.

Tom Cruise and Leo DiCaprio are awful actors and I don’t want to keep seeing them in movies. I ask for them not to have a career any longer. You are not taking me seriously, are you? That’s what I expected. However, the author of the article expects to be taken seriously.

«Is it because you once loved the swashbuckling Jack Sparrow when he burst onto the high seas 14 years ago? Trust me, there’s another actor out there who can wear a ton of black eyeliner and dreadlocks who doesn’t treat women like crap. If you want him to talk like Johnny Depp, give him $30,000 of wine a month and see what happens.»

Is it? Is it? Yeah, you in the back who dared to raise your eyebrow in disbelief! Did you defame Ms. Heard, did you unquestionably, stupidly, fangirlily (sic) defend the big bad Johnny Depp because 14 years ago you fell in love with Jack Sparrow? Shame on you -and your friends and family and future kids- because that’s not a difficult thing to do. Thousands of actors could do it; just put make up on them, dreadlocks and let them drink lot’s of rum, sorry, wine, and there you have it! Johnny Depp who? Plus the thousands other actors won’t treat women like crap. Because Amber Heard, as the only woman who ever accused Johnny Depp of anything, is «women». As I said, both actors become the «face of». No longer individuals, but the face of «heroic women» and «villainous men».

Cool. I wonder how come Disney didn’t think about it. I mean, Disney pays him to play Jack Sparrow. How come if he’s so easily replaced, such a bad actor, such a failed artist movie studios still want him? And… seriously, say you’ve got a painter who sold his ten paintings for millions of dollars but then people stopped buying his paintings. Should he stop paint? Should he stop doing what he loves because of a «journalist» opinion? What the hell is wrong with media people nowadays? How far up their own bum are they to consider their opinions as unquestionable truths?

«At the very least, maybe we could try not casting miscreants as role models in kids’ movies. And it would be great if David Yates, the director of “Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them,” did not defend casting Depp by saying, “you’re a star one week, people are saying odd things the next, but no one takes away your pure talent.”

Yates’ decision is not going to age well.»

Most things don’t age well, Ms. Wright. Most men over fifty are treated like dirt by our generation, in case you haven’t noticed. Even if they haven’t done anything wrong, people will dig and dig to find something.

However, this is the edited version of the article. In the original, Ms. Wright wrote:

«At the very least, maybe we could try not casting miscreants as role models in kids’ movies. The Harry Potter franchise has done just that, replacing Depp with apparent nice guy Benedict Cumberbatch in the upcoming Fantastic Beasts sequels.»

Yeah, yeah I know… This information was replaced when Johnny Depp’s fans pointed out the lack in researching skills the author exhibited by publishing as real an information created specifically for April 1st 2017, April Fools’ Day. That information was that «Benedict Cumberbatch replaced Johnny Depp in Fantastic Beasts 2«. In the end of that article it was clearly mentioned it was a joke but you can’t believe how many people took it as truth and rejoiced. Proves how much they want to understand what they read. Back to the article, the author’s prejudice and hate didn’t permit her to do any proper research on the matter. Just like she didn’t do any proper research on the abuse claims. Just like she took her personal dislike of Johnny Depp as a universal one.

At the same time, she deleted all comments from her IG account that provided the other side of the story; the reasons why her report on the abuse accusation is faulty and one sided. She didn’t like having her lies/half truths being exposed so she deleted them. That’s how it is done in today’s media. Share lies, delete those who bring to light the other side.

«Years from now, if you show your grandkids Depp’s movies — whether it’s the horrible Willy Wonka remake or the terrible fourth instalment of “Pirates of the Caribbean” — it’s going to be like your dad playing Bill Cosby tapes right now. It’s going to make people recoil. And not in that smirking, jokey, Jack Sparrow kind of way. Because no one is finding this shtick funny anymore.»

Some years back, on International Children’s Book Day I organised a tribute to Roald Dahl. As part of the events, I screened «Charlie & the Chocolate Factory». Children from the age of 6 to the age of 17 loved the movie. While the movie was subtitled and 6, 7, 8 year old kids couldn’t read as fast as to follow the subtitles, their teachers in the end told me they hadn’t seen them as entertained before. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory isn’t a remake of Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory. Both movies are adaptations of a book; «Charlie and the Chocolate Factory» written by Roald Dahl in 1964. But let’s be honest here, if Dahl lived today people like Ms. Wright would question his artistry as well, they might call him problematic and wonder why does he still write.

Apparently Ms. Wright thought the movie was a remake of another movie. Least of the facts she got wrong, truth be told

PotC: Dead Men Tell No Tales/Salazar’s Revenge has grossed over 700 million wordwide. But “no one is finding this shtick funny anymore”, right?

Where I am taking this? I have absolutely no trouble when someone says «I don’t like Johnny Depp.» I didn’t like Johnny Depp when the trendy thing was to adore the ground he walked on. I don’t like Tom Cruise or Leonardo DiCaprio. I don’t like Rihanna or Beyonce. Tastes are like that. No one can dictate to me or you or anyone who they should like. I also don’t care if someone believes Johnny Depp is guilty of abusing Amber Heard. What I do care about is presenting their opinion as fact while writing down only one side of the story. It’s worse when said someone has a platform to share their opinion as fact and puts in danger someone’s job and reputation. It’s even worse when the other side of the story, not lies, but facts just Ms. Heard’s actions, Mr. Depp’s evidence and witness list etc, is described «as everything bad has happened to women historically».

It is dangerous, it is scary, it is fascistic.

What I do care is hiding information to promote the idea those who don’t believe Ms. Heard’s accusations are «responsible» for other people getting hurt.

What I do care about is covering personal bias and prejudice under the pseudo-morality of how women are treated badly by society. Women are not an entity. There are good women, there are bad women. There are good men, there are bad men. We are all humans.

In final analysis, and in regards to Mr. Depp, even if big studios stop hiring Mr. Depp, he’ll still be able to find work in smaller, indie productions, in European productions. Johnny Depp’s playground was never just America. He hasn’t been working in HW -and in the movie business- for over 3 decades because he used to be pretty. He’s been regarded as one of the most versatile actors in HW for a reason – even if Ms. Wright disagrees with it. After all, it is just her opinion.

It’s not the first time people in America try to ostracise an artist. They did it in 1952 to Charlie Chaplin. He had challenged the political beliefs of the time, he was controversial in ridiculing a regime whilst it consolidated power across Europe. Chaplin challenged American industries’ working methods and stood up against political acts, which were accepted under the guise of patriotism. So USA put him on exile under the guise of «family values» and «supporting communism». I have seen many young people calling him «problematic» as is the trend today and disregarding his work.

Johnny Depp made a joke about Trump. He apologised for it.

America may do it again; the hate directed at Johnny Depp from all sides is shocking to watch and once again is veiled by moral standards and deletion of the comments that question its sincerity. Free speech applies only to some. That’s not how democracy works.

 

_________________________

*Amber Heard openly lied about his charitie’s interests

 

“Amber Heard appreciates Johnny Depp’s novel interest in supporting two of her favourite charities… This is great and unexpected news,” said a spokeswoman for Heard.

versus the truth:

«Hollywood’s brightest stars will gather at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills on Saturday, Oct. 7, for the second Noche de Ninos Gala to benefit Childrens Hospital Los Angeles.

[…]

«Johnny Depp embodies the very spirit of the `Courage to Care’ Award because he puts smiles on the faces of thousands of children through his great work on film, and his longtime private advocacy of children and children’s charities is nothing short of inspirational,» says Ms. Fernandez-Farrand.»

His «novel interest» had been awarded 10 years prior to its birth according to Ms. Heard’s spokeswoman. Spokeswoman… hm woman who lied! Is it possible?

«Anything less would be a transparent attempt by Johnny’s counsel, Laura Wasser and Patti Glaser, to reduce their client’s true payment by half under the guise of newfound concern for charities that he has never previously supported,» the statement continues.
[x]
Well, I guess women do lie occasionally.