Feminist analysis of the Libel case against the Sun anyone?

That will be one of the issues the Judge will be considering Smileless2012. The Judges who sit in the Family Courts are faced with allegations and counter allegations. Most of those cases may be not quite as extreme as those before the Judge considering this case. Not many folks have the kind of money and "staff" who will mop up after them as has been seen in this tawdry case. Nonetheless, people are not always honest when accusing their partner of abuse. One thing we can all be relieved about is that Mr D and Ms H didn't have children in the middle of their out of control behaviours.

I think Smileless has identified one of the key issues the Judge will consider. If Mr D is found never to have assaulted AH, the Sun loses this libel case. I remain of the view that Mr D would have been well advised to simply deny and walk away.
Neither of them come out of this without being badly tarnished. I find it difficult to accept his claims to be a southern gentleman who would never abuse a woman when there appear to be numerous texts in which he uses abusive language to describe them.

Yes IMO they are Dianahmo unless a man is using reasonable force to defend/protect himself which is why I'm very confused.

There seems to be a lot talk about their mutually abusive relationship which suggests they were physically abusing one another. If JD is claiming he never assaulted AH then it was of course wrong for the Sun to call him a wife beater. If he did because they beat up one another then he is a wife beater.

Smileless2012 Aren't they one and the same thing? I always thought that a wife beater was someone who physically assaulted his wife.

That's a good point trisher, so if I've got this right then JD isn't denying or objecting too claims that he physically assaulted AH, he's objecting to being called a wife beater.

Scurrilous headlines is stock in trade for the media especially newspapers, lurid titillation is why most buy the papers, it is certainly is not because they want a fair unbiased view.

Mostly they stay just inside the libel laws, only occasionally being taken to court, even then the publicity has increased newspaper circulation so they win. As Harry and Meghan are finding out suing newspapers is no walk in the park

Smileless2012 I suppose the question is do you call a man who is involved in a physically violent relationship a "wife-beater"? Which is what the Sun called Depp. Or do you admit there are faults on both side. As a true feminist analysis this is in fact the result of a combative legislative system where there has to be someone who is guilty and someone who is innocent, when in fact it is a complex matter and would be better resolved through negotiation, but whilst we have a patriarchal justice system that isn't going to happen.

They may well have each been a victim of the other's violent tempers, in which case AH was a victim of abuse by JD, and JD was a victim of abuse by AH.

There's a clear distinction IMO between someone using physical behaviour to defend/protect themselves and abusive physical behaviour.

It seems to be generally accepted that this was a mutually abusive relationship, so how can JD claim he didn't physically assault AH?

I have not really followed this story but, I was intrigued by the evidence given by previous partners that JD had never been violent towards them, as though this was evidence that he would not do this.

My ex (we were together thirteen years) never ever showed any sign of violence towards me. In fact he used to get cross if he ever heard of any man hitting a woman. However, he did hit his second wife (this was witnessed by our daughter). Maybe the violence is more to do with the relationship.

I would never say that the abused woman brings it upon herself but, maybe, there are some relationships which should not be.

Davidhs

It seems to me that they are both guilty of manipulating each other, the Sun is in between selling newspapers, making the most of a nice juicy scandal and are likely to win the case.

The only winners are the lawyers, because on the balance of probability, some abuse happened to Heard, how much of the evidence is true is highly questionable.

We mustn't forget that this case is Depp -v- NGN and the Sun's executive editor Dan Wootton, not Depp -v- Heard.

Yesterday I had to look up details of an ongoing local problem before contacting a local councillor and was shocked to find the problem had made headlines in The Sun and the vicious, untrue coverage of it was astonishing. It was a biased and nasty load of lies.

Therefore, I hope that, if what The Sun said is unfounded, Depp wins his case and the Sun is kicked into the long grass.

As another poster said, The Sun's coverage of the Hillsborough disaster was disgraceful too. It should have been shut down years ago.

Iam64

A feminist analysis doesn't simply mean 'taking the part of the woman' as some seem to believe. It's about looking at research on domestic abuse, including the way in which abusers will attempt to shift responsibility on to the woman

Very true. And in some cases the abuser is the woman and she'll shift the responsibility on the man

These 2 were clearly toxic together. He is no innocent in this and drugs and alcohol have played a part.

But listen to the audio recordings and read transcripts

To discuss domestic abuse is fine but this case is like no other. There is plenty of evidence where she is heard to be mocking Depp and admitted that she gets violent, throws things and hits him. She has been arrested for hitting a previous partner and also filmed when her friends were discussing her hitting her sister

So unless you wan to bore yourself rigid by reading the tawdry factual detail save concern for real domestic abuse victims.

Actually David mentioned the Sun, the role of the Sun in domestic violence cases has been very weird lately, I suppose it is as simple as selling newspapers.

Galaxy

Thanks grandad but I will discuss whatever areas of domestic violence I wish.

????

I haven't 'taken sides' because it's impossible to do so given the allegations, counter allegations, denials and distortions given during this case. The Judgement is where we hope to be able to reach conclusions about which parts of the evidence given are closest to the truth.
A feminist analysis doesn't simply mean 'taking the part of the woman' as some seem to believe. It's about looking at research on domestic abuse, including the way in which abusers will attempt to shift responsibility on to the woman.

Thanks grandad but I will discuss whatever areas of domestic violence I wish.

Galaxy, the Depp liable action is the matter under discussion in this thread not the general and wider matter of violent breakup of relationships or who you may know as "wealthy persons" in such situations.

In regard to the Depp and Heard relationship, their individual careers kept them apart in different parts of the world for many months at a time during their association.

Heard could just have not returned to him at the end of any of those periods and set up security around that.

Simple's.

It seems to me that they are both guilty of manipulating each other, the Sun is in between selling newspapers, making the most of a nice juicy scandal and are likely to win the case.

The only winners are the lawyers, because on the balance of probability, some abuse happened to Heard, how much of the evidence is true is highly questionable.

I am not referring to this case in particular but wealth has absolutely nothing to do with it I am afraid, I know independently wealthy women who have been unable to escape, partly due to coercive control and partly due to the threats of either suicide or murder of they leave. Wealth does not guarantee safety. Again I am not referring to this particular case, there are many ideas about domestic violence and they arent helpful.

I would agree that for many women leaving a violent relationship can be a difficult and dangerous action to carry out.

However, Amber Heard is a successful, wealthy and well known personality where a security presence would have been in existence even at the time of her relationship with Depp.

Therefore, personal danger to her outside of Depp's presence was in all probability well looked after at the time the relationship and certainly is now as the scenes from outside the court has demonstrated.

To say that there was difficulty and danger to Heard at any time when she decided to leave Depp is total rubbish.

These ardent feminists who fought to make rape within marriage illegal, who established domestic violence shelters, do you mean those ardent feminists.
I have no idea about this particular case but the why didn't she leave him is used to criticise victims of domestic violence all the time. One of the many reasons (again I am not referring to this particular case) is that leaving a violent man is the most dangerous thing to do, it is when a lot of women get killed.

So really this case has nothing to do with feminism!

Amber has a history of violence, why would I support her when Depp hasn't, not a fan of either, but why should he be labelled a wife beater if he's not, he's a lot of things, but not a wife beater. not watching the reports on it, I read enough when the case was bought. I think if I was a man with money I wouldn't marry anyone. She woukd have to pass the 'mother' test.?
Is feminism supporting a woman just because she is? It like having a quota of women in jobs to get the balance right, it should be about the right person for the job regardless of sex or race or religion. These ardent feminists give women a bad name.

I totally agree with the post made by Oopsminty @23:06 yesterday. I have not followed the case closely other than what I have seen on the news. However, these two people seemed to have lived lives dominated by drink and drugs in which abuse and violence became all part of the same scene.

The testimony that Amber Heard deliberately defecated in their bed I found utterly sickening and demonstrated that all the blame and responsibility for what happened in the relationship was not just with one side.

If Depp was so violent against her why did she not leave him much sooner than she did? She is an actress and personality in her own right and therefore could easily have cut all ties with him and gone her own way once again.

I believe this was a relationship of convenience in which both parties believed it would enhance their entertainment careers and little was to be found in regard to love and respect from the very start.

I read a couple of articles about this and came to the conclusion that I couldn’t come to a conclusion ! and would not like to be the judge in this “he said /she said he did /she did”

oopsminty, you’d be guessing wrongly.

Summerlove

Smileless2012

I agree Iam. Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of the equality of the sexes.

Depp taking the Sun to court in IMO is a further example of his abuse of AH.

She had no choice but to attend and he has therefore continued with his abuse by continuing to humiliate her and done so this time, with the world looking on.

Absolutely.

She has been treated very poorly

I'm guessing you two have absolutely no idea about this case at all.