Quick Summary
The Johnny Depp Trial
In previous articles of this series, I’ve discussed the key factors that create a Cancel Culture. First is a Hierarchy of Victims (HoV) model. Second, a Hero Villain Victim model (HVV) and, third, incentives in the form of ‘Clout‘ used to publicly shame (Cancel) people, punishing them for ‘bad behaviour.’ In this article, I will apply those concepts to a recent public trial to suggest a hypothesis.
Johnny Depp’s famous and well-covered 2022 trial in which he took his ex-wife Amber Heard to court for defamation is, (in my opinion,) an excellent example of a modern-day To Kill A Mockingbird story. Just like in To Kill a Mockingbird, Depp was (initially, at least) convicted in the court of public opinion simply because he was accused.
Heard claimed in public that Depp had beaten her. The ACLU (The American Civil Liberties Union) penned an article in support of her claim, and it was published in the New York Times (NYT.)
Once that happened, all the criteria required were met to generate outrage online. No proof beyond Heard’s claims was required.
Let’s apply the HoV and HVV models to the situation.
- Hero: The ACLU / NYT / Outraged Internet Users.
- Villain: Johnny Depp (a White Man – the top of the HoV model – not considered a victim.)
- Victim: Amber Heard (Woman claimed to be the recipient of domestic violence.)
- Incentives: Heard’s motivation was to garner public support for her plight and publicity, which might help her get future acting roles. The incentive for people commenting on Social Media platforms was Virtue Signalling that they supported the victim. Both are forms of ‘Clout.’
The court case found that Johnny had lost his role as lead actor in the next Pirates Of The Caribbean film because of Heard’s accusations. That’s a significant loss, estimated by the court in the trial as worth tens of millions of dollars. Of course, one can understand that Disney, the family brand that owns the franchise, would not want to be associated with such a person.
I watched most of the trial live because I had just moved to Dallas, and I didn’t have much to do then. It was also a media spectacle.
The Heard / Depp trial was, in my opinion, a modern-day To Kill A Mockingbird story.
Source : NBC News
Clearly – Heard’s accusation is not enough to warrant legal punishment.
Under the law in both the UK and USA, the accused is considered innocent until convicted. One of the problems with this Cancel Culture stuff is that the law, reason, common sense, and facts often go out of the window. Depp’s case is a good example. Many did not consider the law before cancelling him. Neither were the facts of the case. So why? What happened?
Every human being has good and bad in them. However, I perceived from this court case that society had kind of written off the idea that a woman could be bad. We have the expression ‘Toxic Masculinity’ but not an equivalent ‘Toxic Femininity.’
And not everyone has the resources, time, money, and opportunity that Johnny Depp did to take his accuser to court and have their lies laid bare.
Yes, we should believe all women – but that does not replace the rule of law.
I believe that when Weinstein and the others were taken to court, most reasonable people said – ‘Do you know what? These #MeToo people have a point.’ This does happen.
Source : Insider.com
The #MeToo movement has done a lot of good things. I think we had and, to a degree, still have a culture that is too accommodating about how men treat women in sexual situations. I believe when #MeToo surfaced, most people (Men, the world) thought, ‘You know what? They (women standing up against harassment) have a fair point here, and This stuff needs to stop.’
I had a similar view when I saw the outcome of the Johnny Depp trial. When the parties presented the facts of the matter in court, they, having been previously examined in public, caused most reasonable people watching to arrive at the following conclusion: Depp has a point here – and maybe more than one of the other accused men have a point, too.
It’s hard to argue against the sentiment in the Depp case. It’s clear to all concerned that both women and men have good and bad in them. A small proportion of alleged crimes are false alerts; of course, some of those crimes are falsely alleged by women. (The FBI estimates 8% of rape allegations reported by women are fakes – one in twelve.)
And yet, elements of the mass media simply cannot consider the counterpart to the story they like telling. After the jury, the case was called an ‘orgy of misogyny.’ One Guardian writer described the decision to clear Depp of the allegations as ‘hard to shake the feeling that the verdict was made against ‘all women”.
The Depp case caused me to form a hypothesis.
Reviewing what happened in the Depp case caused me to consider the broader circumstance and develop a hypothesis. My hypothesis is that it’s possible to cancel a white man without evidence. I believe that’s because society does not see him as a victim in any circumstance and sits at the top of the Hierarchy of Victims. Society views white men as the villain. Any other person can also be cancelled, but one needs proof to cancel someone other than a white man – because society deems every other group as a minority and lower than (more of a victim than) white men on the HoV.
Of course, anyone can posit a hypothesis. For it to be accurate, the hypothesis needs to match facts in the real world. In the next article, I will examine some examples of Cancellation. I’ll start with examples of people who have been cancelled and who played what role in the HVV model.
Neil Aitken - Blog 