Mr. Depp argued that the case had nothing to do with widespread protection of the First Amendment’s speech. Instead, he insisted, it was about the credibility of the whistleblower. “The First Amendment does not protect lies that hurt people and defames them,” Depp’s lawyer said. Said A jury trial when the trial is over.
Some lawyers said they were surprised at the results, especially as Mr. Depp lost a similar proceeding in the United Kingdom, where the legal standards for defamation public figures are much lower. According to George Freeman, executive director of the Media Law Resources Center and former New York Times lawyer, the main difference is that the judge decided the issue in the UK, while the jury supported Depp in the United States. about it.
“The jury decides what to decide, but often there is no further explanation,” Freeman said.
The jury also supported Mr Hard in that she claimed that Mr. Depp’s lawyer had injured her for accusing her of damaging the couple’s penthouse, further further results. It was interesting.
“If one is false, the other is true,” Freeman said. “Giving both awards seems to be a kind of contradiction.”
Johnny Depp’s Defamation Case Against Amber Heard
One implication of the jury trial’s split decision is that the law may not do what people expect because of its complexity.
In other similar defamation cases, publishers have also participated in the proceedings. In an increasingly polarized climate, First Amendment experts, especially concerned about the use of defamation proceedings against the press, were not nominated as a party in Mr. Depp’s case. He said the fact probably facilitated his victory.
Ronnel Andersen Jones, a law professor at the University of Utah, said the post would have been more focused on how to abuse defamation law if it had been sued.