An unexpected consequence of the Depp v. Heard decision. Since Depp is a public…

An unexpected consequence of the Depp v. Heard decision. Since Depp is a public figure, in order to win the case he had to prove not only the discrepancy between the disseminated information and reality, but also actual malice (relatively speaking, abuse or the fact that by disseminating false information, Heard knew that the information was unreliable). This is an extremely high standard of proof. This rule was established by the Supreme Court in New York Times v Sullivan (I talked a little about this here) in order to prevent pressure on those who criticize public figures.

Because Johnny Depp managed to achieve such a high standard, Kyle Rittenhouse said that Depp’s victory convinces Rittenhouse himself to sue the media for calling him a “killer.” If this happens, and the lawsuit goes to those who called Rittenhouse a murderer after his acquittal, it will be an interesting case that will revolve around the meaning of the word “murderer”: from a factual standpoint, Rittenhouse did kill people, that is, he is a murderer, but from the point of view From a legal point of view, Rittenhouse is acquitted of murder, that is, he is not a murderer.

On the issue that actual malice is difficult to prove, there is an excellent recent example. Former Alaska governor and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin sued the New York Times over an article in which the newspaper accused the politician of contributing to one of the 2011 hoaxes with her pro-gun rhetoric. A little later, the newspaper issued a clarification, where it admitted that it was wrong when speaking about the connection between Palin’s rhetoric and jokes, but Palin decided to go to court. Preparations for the process have been going on since 2017, although the process itself took place only a few months ago.

Advertisement

One of the plaintiff’s points of proof was actual malice, but the standard of proof was so high that after the jury retired to deliberate, the judge decided that even if the jury returned a verdict in favor of Palin, he would do an extremely rare thing in American law: by its decision will overcome the verdict and refuse the claim, since actual malice has not been proven. By the way, after 13 hours of deliberation, the jury unanimously decided in favor of the newspaper, and the court did not have to overcome anything.