Military News Opinons

Why We Can’t Let Amber Heard’s Melodramatic Whining About Internet Abuse Close American Courtrooms


Amber Heard—a person who is definitely not a victim of domestic abuse and is actually an admitted perpetrator of said abuse—should never be allowed to guilt us into stopping both mocking her and other abusers like her on the internet and opening courts to live streaming events. She took the stand, probably against her counsel’s advice last Thursday, and proceeded to whine about being mocked on the internet and claimed people want to kill her and her baby (in a microwave). Maybe that happened. But considering her track record for telling the truth I have my doubts. The media is determined to help her look as victimy as possible, which is incredibly hard to do since the world watched the trial and has a very different opinion of Ms. Heard. Big Media have been busy writing garbage articles like this one in Variety, “Why Was Depp-Heard Trial Televised? Critics Call It ‘Single Worst Decision’ for Sexual Violence Victims.”

In weighing the issue, Azcarate noted that she was getting a lot of media requests, and she had a responsibility to keep the proceedings open to observers. If cameras were not allowed, she worried that reporters would come to the courthouse, potentially creating a hazardous condition there.

“I don’t see any good cause not to do it,” Azcarate said.


Allowing gavel-to-gavel coverage has given viewers the chance to see all the evidence, assess the credibility of the witnesses, and make up their own minds without having anything filtered out by news outlets. But some observers worry that Azcarate’s decision will also have a chilling effect on victims of domestic violence.

“Allowing this trial to be televised is the single worst decision I can think of in the context of intimate partner violence and sexual violence in recent history,” said Michele Dauber, a professor at Stanford Law School. “It has ramifications way beyond this case.”

Judge Penney Azcarate was 100% right. When the court gets that many media requests, the obvious answer is “yes.” The reason for that is this is America and we have a constitutional right to open courts. The People are in charge of the government here, and if they want into a government proceeding you let them in. They are the supervisors of all three branches of government. Saying no to the People is like saying no to your boss. You shouldn’t do it unless you want to lose your job. In the age of television, that means you televise the sought-after event so that the greatest number of the public can access it without traveling to Virginia and sleeping on the sidewalk to maybe get in.

See also  How Many Strikes Before Fox News Is Out, Y’all…?

The other reason why this trial and every other trial ought to be streamed online is because the transparency of our justice system is far more important than any privacy concerns. Rape victims or minors can and should be protected from public view by testifying behind a screen. But their testimonies should not be hidden from the public for the exact same reason that it would have been a travesty of justice if Depp v. Heard had been closed. Imagine if that had happened and the only reports we got to hear were from the corporate press!

I reported how the press misrepresented the facts of this case from the beginning. They coordinated to paint Heard as the victim, to deny that Depp was a victim of domestic abuse, and to protect the #MeToo movement at all costs. They appeared to collude with Heard’s PR team and only reported articles that were favorable to her by a large margin. Without the cameras in the courtroom broadcasting reality, the American people would be just as gaslit as the people of the UK who had to hear about the defamation suit Depp brought against The Sun through the filter of the biased and treacherous corporate press—including the one that got sued!

No thank you.

Since the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, it has become increasingly clear why we need live-streamed court cases. We all saw how the media misrepresented that case and tried to lead the public to believe that Rittenhouse was doomed to receive a guilty verdict. But thanks to streams on YouTube like Rekieta Law, where lawyer Nick Rekieta streamed it and commented with expert opinions from lawyers, the people knew which way that trial was going to go. If you were just watching the mainstream press, you would have thought Rittenhouse’s goose was cooked. The difference between independent media coverage and the lying presstitutes is stark. We here at PJ Media also called the Rittenhouse trial right and reported what was actually going on and our readers also knew to expect an acquittal.

Do you trust NBC and CNN to tell you what happened in any court at this point? The trial of Ghislaine Maxwell wasn’t live-streamed (because federal courts don’t allow it for some stupid reason), and what do we know about that case? Absolutely nothing. Who knows what happened in that case? The only people watching it and reporting were from the lying “enemy of the people” corps.

See also  Justice Might Finally Be Served: Arrest Made After 1,000-Hog Death Wave Rocks Small Iowa County

As to the “chilling effect” that Variety claims live-streamed trials will have on abuse victims, I say BALONEY. Depp is the abuse victim in this case and he was vindicated, win or lose. He was also the one who asked for cameras. Most victims want the public to know what happened to them. It’s the abusers who want the evidence against them hidden from public scrutiny.

The People got to see the evidence in this case and weigh it and they saw the truth. This case was a WIN for abuse victims. It showed that our justice system does work, that evidence matters, and men who are victims of domestic violence can come forward and be believed. That would never have happened without cameras in the courtroom.

Imagine how hard it was for Depp to admit that he was beaten regularly and then hospitalized by a small woman. That’s not something any man wants to say out loud. But he did it. That’s a good development for victims. In my investigative work dealing with family court corruption, I talk to a lot of real victims of domestic abuse. They’ve been following my coverage on the Depp trial and not one of them has defended Heard. In fact, all of them that I have spoken with since this trial are livid at Heard for attempting to wear the mantel of an abuse victim when she is clearly the abuser.

See also  New Poll Finds American Confidence in 16 Institutions, Including the Presidency, Sunk to Record Lows

Real victims are thrilled that Depp got to tell his story in public. They are not concerned in the least that this trial was televised. I get messages from them all day long saying, “I heard my abuser in Amber’s voice,” and “Listening to her triggers my PTSD because that’s what my abuser used to say to me.” Women who are victims of abuse are not supporting Heard. I have message after message from women saying, “I believe Johnny. He acts and sounds like me.” One of these women, Elaine, sent me a photograph of her face after being beaten severely by her abuser to show me what Heard should have looked like if what she said happened actually happened. It was horrific, and everyone in my chat and I believed Elaine immediately. But none of us believe Heard and for good reason.

Don’t let anyone in the media fool you into believing that Heard is some abuse victim and the internet mocking her is damaging to victims. Real victims feel vindication at watching an abuser get her just desserts.

Join me on Tuesday for a verdict watch stream on YouTube where I will be doing even more mocking of Heard and her terrible lies and awful performance on the stand while we await the jury’s verdict. The #MeToo movement is turning into the #MenToo and #BelieveEvidence movement and I’m here for it.

Story cited here.

→ What are your thoughts? ←
Scroll down to leave a comment: