What's always missing in these takes is that "articles like Heard's op-ed, which never named Depp, can now be legally argued as defamatory" is incorrect.
Articles like Heard's ARE defamatory. It was argued and proven in court. The precedent has been set.
No, no precedent was set. You can't cite D*pp v. Heard in any other case. This is the same mistake those Blue Checks and this random member who was able to have their actionable posts deleted made.
This was always the case. D*pp was able to use
Heard's actions Twitter bots and TikTok influencers to convince a jury that he got over the defamation burdens. Anyone could have done this if they had a similar case and didn't care about the cost to achieve it. It's probably happened in the past but didn't involve two billion dollar franchise celebrities.
The activists don't have a fear about a precedent, they don't even care about the specifics of the case, they have a fear that the publicity of this case will cause other people who are wrongfully accused to fight back rather than give up. That's why they're spending all their energy on delegitimizing the process. They're afraid they'll follow another Heard into another D*pp situation.