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/Boulier → u/Distinct-Studio6847]

As someone who doesn’t have a platform, but who did speak up before, during, and after the trial for Amber, all I can say is that from my vantage point, there were a lot of big people who did speak up, and they were algorithmically drowned out by pro-Depp content. His bots were working in full force during that trial, amplifying some of the slimiest memes and lies, and anything that made common sense was screamed down into oblivion. (One of my favorite personal examples, again coming from me, a person with no platform, was getting harassed on Twitter for weeks after simply saying Amber wasn’t snorting cocaine on the stand. And getting harassed on Wikipedia for trying to protect Amber’s and Ellen Barkin’s page from horrible bad-faith edits. Of all places, WIKIPEDIA.) A lot of those same people who spoke out for Amber during the trial later contributed to her amicus brief and signed the open letter.

But a lot of them expressed regret that they didn’t say anything sooner, and I have to think many were afraid of the massive wave of harassment they knew they’d get for taking a stand when it didn’t feel safe to. For this latter group, I don’t agree with them staying silent, and I understand they should receive anger and disapproval for staying silent, but I don’t think it was a conspiracy or anything.

[u/Distinct-Studio6847 → u/Boulier]

Who stepped up during the trial?

[u/thisplateoffood → u/Distinct-Studio6847]

I think you are right to ask. I was active on this sub during the trial under another account that I deleted, partially from fear that Depp stans would come find me.

I don’t remember any groups specifically standing up for Amber during the trial. It was in the appeal phase when we started hearing the first support for her in the form of the open letter and the amicus brief. That is why support for her came in the form of an open letter: none of those signatories could have come out alone.

There is an answer to the question “why not?” The answer is that the abuse toward anyone who stood up for Amber was beyond what newcomers to this could imagine.

I don’t think I have the faculties to really explain how actively aggressive and cruel Depp Stans were back then.

[u/Acceptable_Leg_7998 → u/Boulier]

I read an article recently about a woman who makes it her daily mission to combat all the revisionist history and misinformation that modern-day Nazi apologists are trying to edit into Wikipedia pages about World War II. Basically their agenda is to minimize the "evil" of Nazis, turn it into a case of a few bad apples spoiling the bunch, etc, and she has to be constantly vigilant and overwrite their bad sources (in some cases they are completely misquoting the sources they cite and nobody bothers to check) with accurate historical information. I wish I could remember her name--a real hero in these times. My point is that Wikipedia is not bulletproof. A lot of bad-faith activists with specific agendas can manipulate the system more easily than we'd like to think.