Thursday, June 2, 2022

Opinion Today: Why nobody wins in the Depp-Heard verdict

We'll always love to see a woman brought low. 
Author Headshot

By Jessica Bennett

Contributing Editor, Opinion

On the second day of jury deliberations in the trial of Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, a pirate ship docked in front of the Fairfax County courthouse. It was transported by flatbed truck, painted brown and had a woman pirate figure at its bow, her breasts partially exposed. Depp's face flanked the side of the boat, in character as Captain Jack Sparrow.

But a pirate ship was hardly the weirdest thing about this spectacle of a defamation trial — which resulted in a jury finding that Depp had been defamed by Heard, and awarding him significant monetary damages, while also finding that Heard had been defamed in one instance by Depp's lawyer.

There were also alpacas. Fans who traveled from around the world. Memes acting out Heard's allegations of abuse. Conspiracy theories for every predilection. And the fact that everyone, it seems, thinks that they are the experts in what happened behind closed doors between two people, each of whom had accused the other of reputational damage and domestic abuse (accusations they both denied).

It's safe to say that not since the O.J. Simpson case, when more than half of America tuned in to watch the verdict, or the trial of Phil Spector, or even Casey Anthony, each of which were broadcast on TV, has a trial become such a circus. And not since Lorena Bobbitt — when hot dogs and other phallic-shaped snacks were sold outside the courthouse — has a case involving accusations of domestic violence been treated like such a spectator sport.

ADVERTISEMENT

Depp may be the bigger victor in this case, awarded $10.35 million, compared to $2 million for Heard.

But the truth is, there are no real winners here.

The trial dredged up Depp's history of substance abuse and violent outbursts. His text messages about his ex-wife, read aloud, were so crude they cannot be printed here. Heard admitted to hitting Depp, which she said was in self-defense. And she was forced to recount graphic details of alleged physical and sexual assault. She has also received death threats.

Meanwhile, victims of domestic violence watched this case play out with horror.

It seems we are no wiser about the complicated and sometimes messy realities of intimate partner abuse. If anything we have perpetuated every last trope.

The trial didn't spark any new understanding about the #metoo movement.

Even after all our declarations of being better now, of having learned from the treatment of women like Monica Lewinsky or Britney Spears, we are no closer to being the kind of culture that does not televise such events, that does not capitalize on celebrity misfortune, that does not salivate over watching a woman brought low. As Lewinsky put it in an essay this week for Vanity Fair: We are all guilty.

ADVERTISEMENT

Earlier in the trial, I wrote about how the courtroom drama seems to have exposed our deepest misogynistic tendencies. Heard, whether you chose to believe her or not, has endured what is essentially a good, old-fashioned public pillorying — only memes have replaced the stones.

And yet at the end of the day, this is about more than Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. This is about us.

ADVERTISEMENT

We want to hear from you.
Tell us about your experience with this newsletter by answering this short survey.

Here's what we're focusing on today:

Ideas

Charles M. Blow

The Age of 'Too Far'

The idea that Black Lives Matter, "woke culture" and the #MeToo movement have gone too far has propelled a backlash across the political spectrum.

By Charles M. Blow

Article Image

Guest Essay

Is Biden's Foreign Policy Team the Best of 'the Blob'?

It is certainly cohesive. But the downside of cohesion is groupthink.

By Peter Beinart

Article Image

What Comes After the Religious Right?

Secularization has supercharged the culture wars and expanded the Republican tent.

By Nate Hochman

Article Image

Guest Essay

Inflation Should Make Us All Vegetarians

Meat prices have soared 14 percent this year. Eating plant-based foods could save Americans' wallets — and help the planet.

By Annaliese Griffin

Article Image

Binyamin Appelbaum

When Picking Judges, Democrats Need to Stop Ignoring Economics

President Biden needs to nominate jurists who share his commitment to revitalizing antitrust enforcement. So far, he has not.

By Binyamin Appelbaum

Article Image

Peter Coy

Saving Patients' Lives Is a Matter of Seeing the Big Picture

Stop pinning the blame on individuals when the whole system is at fault.

By Peter Coy

Article Image

Subscribe Today

New York Times Opinion curates a wide range of views, inviting rich discussion and debate that helps readers analyze the world. This work is made possible with the support of subscribers. Please consider subscribing to The Times with this special offer.

Games Here is today's Mini Crossword and Spelling Bee. If you're in the mood to play more, find all our games here.

Forward this newsletter to friends to share ideas and perspectives that will help inform their lives. They can sign up here. Do you have feedback? Email us at opiniontoday@nytimes.com.

Contact us if you have questions about your Times account, delivery problems or other issues, visit our Help Page or contact The Times.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for the Opinion Today newsletter from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

Wednesday, June 1, 2022

Opinion Today: President Biden on what the U.S. will and will not do in Ukraine

"We do not want to prolong the war just to inflict pain on Russia."
Author Headshot

By Yara Bayoumy

World and National Security Editor, Opinion

Since the start of Russia's invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, one thing has been clear in Washington: The United States intends to stand firmly behind Ukraine. Congress has committed tens of billions of dollars in assistance to Ukraine, senior officials have visited the country and the American flag is flying once again at the U.S. embassy in Kyiv. As demonstrations of support go, it's pretty unequivocal.

And yet, on some objectives, the Biden administration has been more muddy. What first began as an effort to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression appeared, over time, to expand to weakening Russia, as Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in late April. And of course, President Biden, in an apparently impromptu comment in March, said Vladimir Putin "cannot remain in power."

So what goals should the United States be committed to? Our editorial board raised this question in a recent piece, suggesting that President Biden should make clear to President Volodymyr Zelensky that "there is a limit to how far the United States and NATO will go to confront Russia." The board argued, for example, that "a decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal."

ADVERTISEMENT

The editorial provoked a strong reaction, and an especially agitated one from Ukrainians. The Kyiv Independent wrote that Ukraine's belief that it can prevail over Russia "isn't based on overconfidence. It's based on necessity," and that any concession to Russia would "lead to another war sooner or later."

Ukraine's goal is clear enough: It wants to win and push Russia out of Ukraine. But what about the United States? In a guest essay, President Biden seeks to clarify what exactly the country's aims are.

"We want to see a democratic, independent, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine with the means to deter and defend itself against further aggression," President Biden writes. The United States has armed Ukraine "so it can fight on the battlefield and be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table."

Crucially, President Biden says the United States does not seek regime change in Russia, nor will he pressure Ukraine to accept any territorial concessions. These are important red lines that may dictate the trajectory of the war.

The question now is whether, as the war grinds on, the administration's tune will remain the same.

ADVERTISEMENT

We want to hear from you.
Tell us about your experience with this newsletter by answering this short survey.

Here's what we're focusing on today:

ADVERTISEMENT

Subscribe Today

New York Times Opinion curates a wide range of views, inviting rich discussion and debate that helps readers analyze the world. This work is made possible with the support of subscribers. Please consider subscribing to The Times with this special offer.

Games Here is today's Mini Crossword and Spelling Bee. If you're in the mood to play more, find all our games here.

Forward this newsletter to friends to share ideas and perspectives that will help inform their lives. They can sign up here. Do you have feedback? Email us at opiniontoday@nytimes.com.

Contact us if you have questions about your Times account, delivery problems or other issues, visit our Help Page or contact The Times.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for the Opinion Today newsletter from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018