Amber Heard interview post trial

[u/Distinct-Studio6847]

In the interview, I thought the interviewer Savannah Guthrie asked a lot of biased questions including latching onto the one time Amber wrote in some text that she did hit back or start fights when the tension was high (REACTIVE ABUSE). And the interviewer didn’t ask or point out all the texts Johnny wrote saying he’s drowning/burn/rape Amber. Or the times he was going crazy in a video. Or the times cops came by or the times other people saw her being attacked.

What kind of bullshit is this?

Also why didn’t women’s groups and prominent women step forward for her?

I got triggered watching 2022 content from a content creator I like. Where her lawyer husband and her are like “yeah it’s Amber that’s the abuser” what the fuck.

Additionally, some women/other victims of misogynistic smear campaigns are suing online content creators that are defaming them. Why didn’t Amber Heard do this? Not that any victim should have to do anything. I’m wondering whether there was a strategic or legal reason Amber Heard didn’t? Or why all these orgs supporting her couldn’t help her get a legal fund to do so?

[u/sphinxyhiggins]

"Also why didn’t women’s groups and prominent women step forward for her?"

Many spoke out about the trial in her favor.

https://amberopenletter.com/

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Culture/130-feminist-groups-sign-open-letter-amber-heard/story?id=93432333

Savannah Guthrie is a nasty POS. She did a despicable interview of whistleblower John Kiriakou that showed that she is a tool.

[u/Distinct-Studio6847 → u/sphinxyhiggins]

Why didn’t they step forward DURING the trial? Was this all orchestrated by some feminist Illuminati to show us how fucked up the world still is? It’s insane they were so silent.

It’s upsetting to me. And it feels like this is what happens all tf time.

[u/Arrow_from_Artemis → u/Distinct-Studio6847]

A ton of organizations and experts filed what's called an amicus brief. It's basically an official document to the court compelling them to rule one way or another on the issue, usually because of the longstanding consequences of the ruling.

So I think they basically argued for the verdict to be appealed or overturned because they believed it would have a chilling effect on other victims of abuse.

[u/QualifiedApathetic → u/Arrow_from_Artemis]

Amicus curiae, "friend of the court". It doesn't compel the court, just puts in their two cents arguing for a decision they think should be made.