[AFAIK]

If you'd click the links you'd see these are opinion pieces not news reports. Next you'll tell me newspapers shouldn't review books and movies.

[Godstud]

@AFAIK, I've oft times seen news anchors give their opinions, so this wouldn't be unknown. Fox News is terrible for doing this, and I'm not just talking about pundits.

If you only post opinion pieces, in your paper, from one point of view, then you are taking sides.

Has The Guardian done any from Depp's perspective?

[Rich]

Look I get it. I get it!

Most people are at least moderately fascistic. Most people unlike me, believe speech should be heavily restricted. Libel and Slander laws are a particularly effective way of controlling speech while not actually banning it outright. Most people think that speech that criticises rich people sholud be heavily restricted. Most people think that rich people should be able to buy expensive lawyers and sue anyone who says things about them they don't like.

Now this situation is a bit messy because you've got one rich person against another rich person. I'm not actually terribly concerned about Heard and Depp wasting hundreds of thousands on lawyers. Another thing I don't mind is people who don't care. If someone comes up to me and says "I couldn't give a toss about Jeffery Epstein's victims, I couldn't give a toss about Jimmy Saville's victims. I couldn't give a toss about all the people who lost their pensions to Robert Mawell's financial fraud." I'm fine with that. However what should not be socially tolerated is people who claim to care but support libel and slander laws.

If libel and slanders are not to be abolished out right at the very least, the right to sue should be removed form those with above a certain wealth and income threshold, from national politicians, and from the directors and top executives of large corporations and other organisations.

[AFAIK]

Has The Guardian done any from Depp's perspective?

Not that I've seen but I haven't been following the case. I also don't look at the opinion pages that often and focus on its news reporting.

[Beren]

The Guardian is on Heard's side and has called the trial a backlash against #metoo and an orgy of misogyny.

The Guardian still would be like that even if Heard literally turned out to be a Gorgon, they'd even try to cancel Perseus for killing her. The most one could expect from them is to call it a draw.

Has PoFo's Guardian columnist Pants-of-dog weighed in already, by the way?

[Potemkin]

PoFo's Guardian columnist Pants-of-dog

[Rich]

Has PoFo's Guardian columnist Pants-of-dog weighed in already, by the way?

To be fair to Pants-of-dog I don't really feel he's a Guardian type. The Guardian likes woke, but it doesn't like it too strong and Black. No the Guardian's for those that take milk and sugar with their coffee.

[Beren]

To be fair to Pants-of-dog I don't really feel he's a Guardian type.

Well, that's not your worst oddity.

[Drlee]

I think I agree with @AFAIK that this is partially push back against the MeToo stuff. There are a great many people who believe the pendulum has swung too far in that regard. We just had another actor fired for flirting

[snapdragon]

First of all, Martha Hill is a freelance journalist. She isn’t the guardian.

Secondly, the lawsuit in the U.K. was decided by a judge and not a jury.

Judges are less likely to be influenced by the methods used by lawyers and they just look at the facts.

Personally, I think they were both as bad as each other. It was a very toxic relationship and neither of them have come out of this smelling of roses.

I would like very much for them both to go away and be quiet now.

I’m not surprised that some of you think that heard’s behaviour somehow validates the opinion that women ought to put up with male aggression and not complain about it.

Sad. But not surprised.

[Beren]

Whatever the Guardian is, it's a good example of what partially caused the right-wing populist backlash. They should thank themselves too for Brexit, they've apparently learned nothing from it because that's just how they are, they don't even see the problem most likely.

It took the testimony of more than a hundred women to bring down Harvey Weinstein. Brett Kavanaugh was not brought down.

Bringing this case on the same page with Weinstein and Kavanaugh is just absurd, at least to me. Depp and Heard were in a kind of typical bad relationship with each other any of them could have quit any time, which is a quite common issue actually and hardly has anything to do with abuse. How can that be compared with Weinstein or Kavanaugh at all?

[wat0n]

The Guardian is just catering to its customer base. Ultimately, there are people who pay for it and one rarely pays for press outlets one doesn't agree with.

[Beren]

The Guardian is just catering to its customer base.

Sure, that's what media outlets do. However, neither the Guardian nor its customer base should be surprised by backlashes against them if they keep pouring their extremist, completely biased or even stupid agenda 24/7 and also vote accordingly. It's still amazing, though, that a woman living in a mutually abusive relationship with a man is somehow in the same league as a Hollywood actress being abused by the most powerful Hollywood producer.

[snapdragon]

So tell me. Are you two daily Mail readers? The telegraph? Express? All of the above?

Cheerleaders for boris Johnson? Especially the express. Even the daily fail is giving up on him.

That is the opinion of one woman journalist who sold an opinion piece to the guardian.

[wat0n]

Yes, and The Guardian bought it for its readership. It's how the business works.

[ingliz]

@snapdragon

It's a shame she isn't a better actress.

It's not that what she was saying was that implausible. It might even have been the truth. But she chose to perform on the stand and did it badly.

[Igor Antunov]

https://nypost.com/2022/06/02/amber-hea ... -spending/

>The high-profile court battle with her ex-husband has left the 36-year-old actress hurting for cash, according to sources, including one who also placed the blame on Heard’s past lavish spending, on travel, clothes, gifts and wine.

>Multiple sources said the “Aquaman” star had to switch legal representation and is now relying on her homeowners insurance policy to cover the cost of her current attorneys in the case.

>Depp could still potentially claim the money he was awarded by garnishing his ex-wife’s wages from her two upcoming movies, levy her assets or even seize her house in California’s Yucca Valley, experts told The Post.

>“[Heard] could be subject to this judgment for up to 30 years. If she suddenly had a new infusion of money – that can discovered by [Depp] and pursued,” Turnbull, a founding partner at Turnbull Holcomb & Lemoine, said.

[Potemkin]

@snapdragon

It's a shame she isn't a better actress.

It's not that what she was saying was that implausible. It might even have been the truth. But she chose to perform on the stand and did it badly.

They were both acting on the stand (as one would expect), but his performance was better than hers (also as one would expect).

[JohnRawls]

Although i didn't watch the hearings because it is stupid, I can definitely see that it had some social effect on a large chunk of more unstable part of the wokest

[Beren]

That is the opinion of one woman journalist who sold an opinion piece to the guardian.

That's what's pouring from the Guardian 24/7, I mean extremely biased feminism. I know what I'm talking about, I was following them on Facebook. It seems it's been getting worse since I stopped, it must be spiralling.