Depp v. Heard: The internet is found guilty

The public spectacle that permeated our media grazing grounds for weeks. (Photo illustration: Quinton McMillan. Images: Getty)

After six weeks of their mutual defamation trial, a jury has found both Amber Heard and Johnny Depp liable for defamation. The jury awarded significantly more damages to Depp—a legal win for the actor.

Depp sued Heard, his ex-wife, for defamation over a 2018 op-ed she wrote for The Washington Post in which she described herself as a "public figure representing domestic abuse." Though unnamed, Depp claims it cost him lucrative acting roles. Heard countersued for defamation over statements Depp's attorney made about her abuse claims.

While he sought $50 million in damages, the jury awarded Depp $10 million in compensatory damages, and $5 million dollars in punitive damages. The jury awarded Heard, who sought $100 million, $2 million in compensatory damages, and no money for punitive damages.

The witness as perpetrator

The verdict marks what is hopefully an end to the private turned public spectacle that permeated our media grazing grounds for weeks.

Gawking at celebrities’ dirty laundry is a spectator sport, we know, but the trial had, as culture critic Ella Dawson tweets, “taken over the internet and warped our understanding of abuse in ways that hurt victims.”

In lieu of watching the coverage via the Court TV’s website or YouTube livestream, we sample cherry-picked accounts of the trial on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook. Through more accessible memes and TikToks, our consumption had been biased, curated, and cursory. Cheap thrills and knee-jerk outrage substitute critical thinking and comprehension. 

Collective voyeurism only took in what was refracted by pundits, pseudo-sleuths on TikTok, and superfans of the Pirates of the Caribbean or Depp’s attorney Camille Vasquez. Online, #JusticeforJohnny hashtags exponentially outnumbered #IStandWithAmber hashtags. TikToks were made mocking Amber’s tears and presenting her every gesture as evidence she was lying. 

Adding more nuance to the mess was the fact that both Johnny and Amber are actors, capable of manufacturing emotions to play on the public’s sympathy. At the same time, they were trapped by their acting skills casting doubt on the sincerity of either party’s normal human anguish. 

But does the public really get a free pass at the rich and famous, entitled to feel superior—or inferior—enough to make domestic abuse into an opportunity of monetization and attention?

It is bad enough that the trial has impacted the personal lives of Depp, Heard, and their loved ones. But the internet’s behavior over the trial impacts as well domestic violence survivors and the #MeToo movement.

The legal spectacle may cause alleged abusers to sue their accusers in court, forcing them to relive the alleged abuse. This mess of judgment and humiliation will be seen by victims as one more reason not to come forward, when coming forward is already so hard to do.

In the end, the internet co-opted the trial to devalue humanity. Distortion, not objectivity, has evolved into an acceptable internet practice.

The jury has found both defendant Heard and plaintiff Depp guilty—but so is the internet.