Anyone who appears in court runs the risk of being elevated into an internet hero or being smeared as a liar. Heard’s attorney Elaine Charlson Bredehoft is branded a “Karen” (once a term for a racist white woman, it’s since flattened to an all-purpose misogyny) and conspiratorially constructed as an undercover Depp fan, while Vasquez is cast as a Depp love interest, hailed as an internet sensation for her “intimate” interactions with her client. Seemingly every woman involved tangentially in the case is imbued with imagined Depp lust. dr. Shannon Curry, an expert witness called by Depp’s team, is celebrated for “switching looks” with Depp on the booth; even Curry’s husband, who she said once delivered muffins to her office, has blown up into a beloved fanfiction character dubbed “the muffin man.” Meanwhile, Depp supporters have harassed two of Heard’s expert witnesses from the medical professional site WebMD, flooding their profiles with one-star reviews.
Johnny Depp’s Libel Case Against Amber Heard
In the courtroom. A libel lawsuit involving formerly married actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard is currently underway at Fairfax County Circuit Court in Virginia. Here’s what you need to know about the case:
The internet live streaming of the trial has created its own virtual sport. Every day, hundreds of thousands of viewers gather on YouTube live streams, such as those from the Law & Crime Network, and type comments in a racing sidebar chat. Some will pay as much as $400 to mark their comments and pin them to the top of the chat – the more you pay, the longer your comments rule the proceedings. During Wednesday’s stream, one contestant paid to say Heard “has a nesting snake on her head”; another promoted his YouTube news song about Heard’s legal team.
The immediacy of the live stream and its commentary gives viewers the illusion that they can somehow influence the outcome of the case; someone is always advocating that an internet artifact be “forwarded to Camille”, as if obsessive attention from fans alone could solve the matter. This week, Depp’s team called a witness who turned up after he posted a tweet in response to a pro-Depp Twitter account’s coverage of the trial.
Even if they can’t influence the process itself, viewers can shape public opinion in real time. Once a fanfiction scenario gains enough momentum to escape, it is elevated to mainstream tabloids, rife with reports of Depp’s courtroom flirtation and epic one-liners on the witness stand. Once, gossip journalists had to create storylines about celebrities themselves, but now the stories are taken straight from social media and enshrined as Hollywood canon. Gossip sites spout banal celebrity internet activity as Depp’s heartwarming content: Jennifer Aniston followed Johnny Depp on Instagram as a “subtle sign of support,” the magazine claimed, and Depp followed Aniston back as a “sweet gesture.”
But when Julia Fox supported Heard on Instagram, she quickly became the focus of articles about how she was hypocritical and “downright stupid.” If a celebrity doesn’t provide such dubious material, it can just be invented: Recently, a YouTuber edited and dubbed test footage to make it look like Heard’s “Aquaman” co-star, Jason Momoa, showed up in the stands to flutter about Depp’s lawyer. .
It’s tempting to ignore all this – to refuse to feed the machine with even more attention. But like Gamergate, which took an obscure controversy within the gaming community and pumped it up into an internet-wide anti-feminist harassment campaign and broader right-wing movement, this nihilistic circus is a potentially radicalizing event. When the trial ends this week, the extensive grassroots campaign to defame a woman will remain, now with a plugged-in support base and a field-tested bullying script. All it takes is a new target.
