The Fame in Defamation
April 2023 | Luke Slota (Executive Organizer) and Jesse Fager (Associate Editor)
Everything a celebrity does becomes part of the public eye in a matter of minutes. While celebrities try to keep their private life under wraps, the hopes of this happening usually fails. Pirates of the Caribbean star Johnny Depp and Aquaman star Amber Heard were no exception. Johnny Depp and Amber Heard have been caught up in a public scandal ever since their divorce in 2017. In the case of John C. Depp, II, v. Amber Laura Heard (2022), Johnny Depp (the plaintiff) sued former wife Amber Heard (the defendant) on grounds of defamation. Defamation is a false statement or claim that harms someone else’s reputation. [1] There are two types of defamation – slander, which is in oral form, and libel, which is in written form. This accusation arose when Amber Heard wrote an op-ed for the New York Times. She wrote this article from the perspective of someone who was a victim of domestic abuse and later stated how she “felt the full force of our culture's wrath for women who speak out.” [2] She never mentioned anyone by name in the article, but it was clear to Johnny Depp that it was about him. He then sued her for 50 million dollars on the grounds of defamation, specifically in the form of libel.
After over 3 consecutive years of trial, the jury reached a verdict in favor of Johnny Depp, entitling him to 10 million dollars in compensatory damages and 5 million dollars in punitive damages. Amber Heard on the other hand, filed a countersuit against Depp for 100 million dollars alleging that Depps' legal team falsely accused her of fabricating claims against the plaintiff. [3] The judges awarded Heard only 2 million out of the 100 million requested for the countersuit. Prior to the Virginia case, Johnny Depp sued The Sun in the U.K. over their claims that he is a wife beater. The judge ended up favoring The Sun, stating that what they put in the article was proven to be “substantially true”. [4] While this is the most well-known defamation case in history, there have been many cases in the past century.
Throughout the past century of defamation cases, the Supreme Court has attempted to find a fine line between defamation and freedom of speech. On one hand, defamation is a strong, yet necessary limitation on the first amendment, extending to both the freedom of speech and freedom of the press – without it, people’s reputations could be ruined. However, defamation suits could be seen as a limit of the first amendment if false accusations are made. It is extremely important to ensure that the defamation is either true or a case of ignorance – otherwise, anyone could say anything without punishment. This is why it is incredibly important to have a proper balance to set a precedent for future cases of defamation.
John C. Depp, II, v. Amber Laura Heard is a libel suit as Heard had written an op-ed for Washington Post about her experience with domestic abuse. Along with this, since this case is unique and between two celebrities, specifically public figures, there is an important standard to be established to file suit for libel. This legal standard is “actual malice” - requiring that the statement from the media defendant was made “with the knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” The burden of proof has a high threshold, requiring that there is “clear and convincing evidence” of actual malice. [5] Since public figures are often under high scrutiny from the public, it is important to protect them from criticism. Criticism is still an important right in the First Amendment. For example, if Amber Heard had a strong opinionated statement about Depp as her partner in the op-ed, she would have the right to do so and the libel suit would be ineligible. This right changes when an opinion becomes a false fact. Actual malice differentiates this threshold of harsh opinions from false facts.
This standard originated in the Supreme Court decision New York Times Co. v Sullivan (1964) in cases involving public officials. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed libel damages filed by L. B. Sullivan, a city commissioner for Montgomery, Alabama. Before, libel suits were entirely under state law, making the difficulty of libel suits vary from state to state. In Alabama, the case was far too easy for Sullivan to win - all he needed to do was prove the existence of mistakes and how they harmed his reputation. [6] Had Sullivan won the libel suit, a precedent would have been set for future news outlets to chill public discourse against public officials. For the majority, Justice Willaim J. Brennan emphasized his point of concern by saying that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open.” Future events protected by this decision include Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair, Flushgate, and more, which otherwise would have been impossible to publish. [7] Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967) changed this standard to be extended to public figures, not just public officials, such as Heard and Depp. Wally Butts, an athletic director at the University of Georgia, was accused of match-fixing, an accusation that would surely hurt his reputation. The district court trial first found libel and the Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, but not without changing the standard to include celebrities, business leaders, and more. [8]
The past Supreme Court decisions definitely left a footprint in the John C. Depp, II, v. Amber Laura Heard. Being a public figure, Johnny Depp needed to prove the existence of actual malice for the defendant. The burden of proof makes it incredibly difficult for the prosecution to win - essentially, the prosecution must enter their mind in order to prove actual malice to the jury. This leans heavily in favor of the defendant since doing so can be a tall task, but was created to have a balance between defamation claims and the first amendment. Specifically, this standard would make suing the Post for the op-ed far more difficult. Firstly, there was no specific mention of Depp’s name, and secondly, Heard filed for a restraining order in 2016 which could protect the editors from being accused of actual malice since they had no reason for doubt of her abuse. However, suing Amber Heard was more straightforward. Firstly, her reference to “domestic abuse” essentially served to name Depp, and secondly, all Depp needed to prove was that she lied about her abuse which insinuates actual malice. Once the jury believed it was a fabrication, actual malice was satisfied and Amber Heard was found liable. [9]
Ultimately this case has left many major implications. One of the most prominent is that the verdict of this case could affect those who come forward about abuse, particularly against those in positions of power. especially against those who have a lot of power. Amber Heard has even expressed on social media that future victims may hesitate to speak up due to the repercussions. The case heavily impacted Johnny Depp and Amber Heard as the public is already seeing the negative consequences that arose from this case. Johnny Depps' reputation has been severely tarnished, losing roles in the Pirates of Carribean and Fantastic Beasts franchises, and Amber Heard has filed for bankruptcy in addition to her time in the upcoming Aquaman movie being cut down to just a few minutes. While this case did not lower standards for defamation cases against the press since Johnny Depp did not pursue that route, it has left many people confused as to whether or not it lowers the standards for future defamation cases against other people.
Sources
“Defamation.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute
Heard, Amber. “Opinion | Amber Heard: I Spoke up against Sexual Violence - and Faced Our Culture's Wrath. That Has to Change.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 2 June 2022
Chappell, Bill, and Jaclyn Diaz. “Depp Is Awarded More than $10M in Defamation Case against Heard and She Gets $2m.” NPR, NPR, 1 June 2022
“Johnny Depp Loses Libel Case over Sun 'Wife Beater' Claim.” BBC News, BBC, 2 Nov. 2020
Wermiel, Stephen. “Actual Malice.” Actual Malice,
Wermiel, Stephen. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Bertoni, Fabio. “Why the Washington Post Wasn't Named in the Johnny Depp–Amber Heard Trial.” The New Yorker, 3 June 2022
McInnis, Tom. “Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts.” Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts
Bertoni, Fabio. “Why the Washington Post Wasn't Named in the Johnny Depp–Amber Heard Trial.” The New Yorker, 3 June 2022