Give Johnny Depp credit for defending his reputation

'Daily Journal' editor Sam R. Hall gives his insight on the Johnny Depp trial. Photo: AFP

I was feeling a bit under the weather this past week, so I ended up spending time at home in front of the television.

The thing that really mesmerised me was the Johnny Depp trial on Court TV. I never watch Court TV. I'm pretty sure most lawyers avoid that channel because why would we want to spend our leisure hours staring at melodramatic, preening attorneys from Michigan or La Jolla ?

And yet, the Depp trial was different. For some background, Depp sued his ex-wife Amber Heard for defamation.

Several years ago, Heard had written an op-ed for the Washington Post describing abuse that she'd suffered at the hands of an anonymous partner. The only problem is, everyone knew who that partner was. And he wasn't happy about being depicted as a violent, abusive man. So Depp sued. The case has now come to trial.

There are some fascinating aspects to Depp v. Heard, and they go beyond the celebrity of the litigants. What I find fascinating is the fact that someone who has been accused of abuse decided to, pun completely unintended, fight back.

And the fact that he did it through the legal system is particularly compelling, since that system has so often failed true victims of domestic violence.

Actress Amber Heard returns to the courtroom after a break at the Fairfax County Circuit Court. Photo: AP

We've been taught to "believe all women," even when they are not especially trustworthy. And even when they are attacked in some quarters, the criticism pales in comparison to the institutional support. You only have to remember the halo placed over the head of Christine Blasey Ford, who had a dicey memory and no witnesses, as contrasted with the vilification of her target, Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

That's why this lawsuit is so interesting and important. Johnny Depp felt that his reputation (which, to be honest, was already in tatters) had been irrevocably damaged, such that his career was now kaput. They were divorced. Their story was over. They had allegedly signed an agreement that neither would speak badly of the other.

But Amber decided she could get some advantage of playing the victim card, especially if she played it dishonestly. Thinking, perhaps, that keeping Depp's name out of the op-ed would have insulated her from any legal liability, she continued to squeeze her private life for cultural gain.

What matters is that someone stood up and said, "You're not going to do this to me and expect me to just take it." What matters is that the victim of accusations that may or may not be true has not been intimidated into silence, but has chosen to use the legal system to try and salvage whatever intrinsic dignity he has.

Members of the public arrive for the Johnny Depp v Amber Heard trial. Photo: AP

Honestly, you don't have to be a saint in order to have a right not to be lied about. Even imperfect reputations have value, and even those who haven't lived lives of spotless virtue don't deserve to be defined by those who find profit in sly cultural stereotypes.

Heard will defend herself by saying that the defamation suit was an attempt to punish her for speaking out about her pain, or even intimidate her into silence. But I doubt that defense will fly. No one is telling her to be silent. They are, however, making sure that she's telling the truth.

Which, as you know, is an absolute defense to defamation. I guess we will just have to see if she's telling it.

In the meantime, anyone who has ever been the victim of lies and innuendo should be praising a flawed, washed-up actor for showing us that there is honour, even in the depths of degradation, in fighting back. – Sam R. Hall/Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal/Tribune News Service