Why isn't the far right supporting Amber's right to freespeech?

[purplepoppy]

I think the Jury got it right and personally I think the judge should have sentenced her to see a psychologist as well. But what I don't get is why the far right of GAG isn't defending her right to freespeech. Normally if someone is mentally deranged and spouts hateful lies they flock to their side to show their support for freespeech.
In many arguments I've had on here they've claimed all speech even lies and defamation should be protected under freespeech laws.

So what's different in this case?

[MCheetah]

This seems like such a strawman. I don't think anyone is questioning her "right to free speech," but rather, her abusing, bullying, lying, and gaslighting Johnny Depp for some 6+ years and getting away with it literally only because she's a woman, by her own words. She was an abuser and then became the spokeswoman for victims of abuse. That's like China being on the human rights council while they commit genocide of Uighurs daily (which is actually true, by the way). That's like the World Health Organization praising the world's largest polluter and creators of COVID for being one of the healthiest, most clean countries on the planet (which is also true, by the way).

"Normally if someone is mentally deranged and spouts hateful lies, they flock to their side to show their support for [free speech]."

Uh... No. That's what the far-left does with all the trans and non-binary bullsh*t. There's literally no people more mentally deranged and entitled to a platform to spread their crap than on the Progressive left. Hell, that's pretty much what the ENTIRE existence of Twitter is! Sounds like you're trying to pull a Heard on us too with all this bullsh*t coming out of you and landing on the metaphorical bed of GAG.

"In many arguments I've had on here they've claimed all speech even lies and defamation should be protected under [free speech] laws."

Again, nobody is questioning her "right to free speech." They're mad at her for wasting countless people's time, abusing Johnny Depp, lying to the media and court officials, gaslighting the public, and using her clout to have media publications also gaslight the public with sh*t like "even if she's lying, we still need to believe all women (because I as a sh*tty, man-hating feminist like having the power to abuse men at any time and I don't want to lose that power and be treated equally)." Lying in a courtroom under oath about being abused has nothing to do with being anti-free speech.

I know you're super-liberal and all @purplepoppy, but come on... If you're going to lie like this, you might as well get paid for it like Salon. com and The Guardian writers are. Frankly, I'm surprised you even said "the jury got it right and I think the judge should have sentenced her to see a psychologist as well." That's not very liberal and "believe all women" of you, is it?

[Paul_in_Indy]

You know you are talking about a court case, right? So, only the people in the room -and only a few of them- have a role in what goes on. You and I can’t “support” or “suppress” any of it…any more than I can Free Tibet if I see your bu, per sticker encouraging me to.

[youngmix]

Because Amber Heard doesn't represent something that they like. She embodies something that they FEAR, and honestly, she scares me as well. Dalia Dippolito is far worse, though. She is the definition of not giving a fuck.

[FreyaRed]

I think even in US is perjury not covered by constitutional right to free speech

[Hanrej]

Because politics is a matter of opinion and power. Consider if the state control the media, wich they practically would by installing an organisation that could and would censor any information they deem false, then they would be undisputable.
In politics you have to allow free speech, even lies. You can argue against others oppinions and their arguments as well as their source of information... You can even go so far as to take liers to court BUT if you control information for whatever reason what stops the government from hiding uncomfortable truths under pretence of "missinformation"?

The court is different. It's purpose is not to argue peoples different opinions but to find an objective truth and punish a purpotrator. You can by all means lie in court, I don't know if there's a law against it... It sure isn't in Sweden... But the courts purpose isn't to install governing laws but rather carry out the laws that are installed. There's a world of difference.

[NYCQuestions1976]

You cannot lie under oath in a court of law in the United States. It's called "perjury", and it's a crime.

[MrOracle]

@NYCQuestions1976 And, yet, sadly, it happens every day, and even when outright proven, it's almost never prosecuted.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@MrOracle This is true. The same is frequently true with contempt of court unfortunately.

[normalice]

It is weird because both the left and right have this uneasy sort of common ground in being overall happy with the outcome, and so the right keeps trying to frame the outcome in increasingly bizarre ways to get the left to take amber's side. I hope no one takes the bait but someone will..

[genericname85]

ambers right of free speech was not touched. she was completely free to publish the op-ed. but freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequence. like if you're a lying defamatory asshole, you do get to say what you wanted to say. that's freedom of speech. but you'll face the consequence for lying and defaming.

[Guffrus]

What you just said doesn't make any sense.

That is like saying there is freedom of speech in North Korea because you can say that you are living in a nightmarish hellscape of lies and oppression but you have to face the consequences of being bundled into the bakc of a van by the police, never to be seen or heard from again.

[wagsingle]

The SCOTUS has rightly ruled that a public figure must prove intent and malice to sue for deformation. Otherwise free speech rights would be harmed. I do not believe that was proven in the least. I suspect the jury was unduly influenced by the blind support of the mobs for their sex symbol. It's insane how folks attacked her from the beginning. Long before they could possibly have made an informed opinion. Sexual desire can render a person incapable of reason.

[genericname85]

@Guffrus ok. I'll put it more easily: freedom of speech means you are free to share ideas and opinions. Not free to say everything like slander, lies, inciting violence and defamation.

[wagsingle]

genericname85 But I don't see how the prosecution met the very high bar set by SCOTUS of malicious intent for defamation of a celebrity.

[Guffrus]

@genericname85 The word you are looking for is 'accurately'.

[genericname85]

@wagsingle well the jury saw it and i saw it.

[wagsingle]

Or they were unduly influenced by the press and it's coverage of the irrational attacks on Amber long before anyone heard any of the testimony. Depp's fans treatment of her was despicable. She was convicted by the court of public opinion the moment Johnny Depp's face appeared on a TV screen. Juries impacted by the same irrational things the general public are. I don't know if she was lying or not, but don't think she had a chance of receiving a fair trial.

[Avicenna]

Why are far left Europeans so deliberately obtuse? Defamation is by definition NOT protected speech.

Leftists think nothing should be protected except their speech. And with mental illness rife among leftists, mist deranged nonsense comes from them.

And yes, „lies“ are protected speech if not defamatory.

[bean2k21]

I can tell any big fat lie I want to, as long as I didn't do it with malicious intent.
Example: "All women are innocent little creatures who never do anything wrong and if they've been victimized, it's most likely a man's fault." See, totally harmless lie.

[demonics]

Is it like a badge of honor to be uninformed in this generation? Serious question. I see so many young people proudly exclaiming support or disapproval of something they very obviously don't understand.

[NYCQuestions1976]

The difference is that Amber Heard was found GUILTY of Defamation Of Character by a JURY of her peers in a COURT of LAW after a TRIAL presided by a JUDGE. Digital morons on Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms aren't the lawful arbiters of news, truth, censorship, and free speech.

[Waldoe]

hehehe... I do not object to Amber speaking out... about anything, someone Great once said "The answer to bad speech, is More speech, not Less"
by the way I am very Republican. Don't believe the MSM that all republicans are Evil, they are selling an agenda... not truth and fairness. I think I am a kind, fair, loving, concerned person offering the best advice my 72 year old brain can think of

[MrTaboo]

Because this isn't a free speech issue. If she was being sued by the state, it would be. But it was between two people. She's he told lies that affected another person's career/income and character. If she was telling truth and it was fold out that it was true. Then she can say it was free speech. But she was lying. Making it all up.

[Anonymous]

Nothing more pathetic than a foreigner who simultaneously shits on America while also tuning in to watch a goddamn celebrity court case. Hypocrites.

[exitseven]

Truthfully, I really could not have cared less what two phony rich people said about each other. I reallly did not pay much attention to this.

[Anonymous]

Why would I care about that? I’ve paid zero attention to it, zero interest in celebrity drama.

[Guy13]

No one on far right cares….

[Iron_Man]

Wow dude you’re on here 24 hours a day from 6 o’clock in the morning you don’t sleep I thought you were an outdoors guy a professional hiker that walks the Appalachian Trail once a year for about a week that hangs out with the hippie girls. Do you have a broken leg or something where it requires you to stay on the computer all day long and all night?

[Kelsea7]

Well I don't support liars

[OddBeMe]

Or see Depp’s debauchery as just as heinous…

[Anonymous]

They don't get bogged down with celebrities

[Unfortunateguy27]

Why isn’t the far left believing all women

[Anonymous]

Seriously, who cares.

[Dargil]

Why should it?

[jimmy2]

She lost