Opinions
Johnny Depp, Amber Heard and the deeply unsatisfying matter of re-litigating their trial
The series was panned by critics
On Aug. 16, Netflix released a three-part docuseries revisiting last summer’s televised civil litigation over allegations that Amber Heard had defamed ex-husband Johnny Depp by claiming to have survived sexual violence and domestic abuse during their four-year relationship.
Rather than offering anything new by way of insight or analysis from anyone with relevant qualifications or experience, each episode features clips from some of the online “creators” who turned their hot takes on the trial into a veritable cottage industry of amateur legal commentary and courtroom conspiracy theories, feeding the rapacious demand for anti-Heard and pro-Depp content. (As if to underscore the project’s unseriousness, these included a men’s rights YouTuber who wore a Deadpool mask and was surrounded by Spider-Man costumes.)
Worse still, “Depp v. Heard” director Emma Cooper fails not only to answer but also to even ask the obvious questions that have lingered since a verdict was returned more than 14 months ago by seven jurors in northern Virginia who were not sequestered as the case became, by far, the most popular topic on social media and online platforms.
At the same time, however, the episodes include footage of courtroom testimony that offer a glimpse, though incomplete, into some of the trial’s more salient and dispositive moments that I otherwise would never have seen (with neither the time nor the inclination, either last year or now, to follow 120+ hours of argument by the parties presented over the course of a seven-week trial.)
Do these scenes redeem the series? Hardly. But that does not mean they offer nothing of value, especially considering that while this was not the retelling of last summer’s events that we deserve, it remains the only one we’ve got. At least, for now.
Susan Sontag, in her 1977 collection of essays “On Photography,” proclaimed “The camera makes everyone a tourist in other people’s reality, and eventually in one’s own.”
In “Depp v. Heard,” the cameras facilitate a very specific kind of tourism that feels both exploitative and voyeuristic, because the reality in which we find ourselves trespassing is dark: the unraveling of a relationship between movie stars through patterns of dysfunction and abuse both familiar and alien, knowable and unknowable, like a city you have visited but never called home.
Especially when coupled with the more outrageous moments from trial that made headlines at the time – such as the debate over whether Heard defecated on Depp’s bed and blamed his teacup Yorkshire Terrier – there is a temptation to treat footage of testimony concerning the smashing of liquor bottles and hurling of wine glasses, the shoving and taunting and threats, even the physical and sexual violence, as though it were pure spectacle.
However, this would suggest, wrongly, that the painful realities of the actors’ relationship are so far removed from our lived experiences that we do not, cannot, or should not relate to them. As if a seven-week trial adjudicating the conflicts in our own intimate relationships or those involving the people we love would not turn up evidence of trouble and dysfunction, or worse.
Considering that we are primed to pick winners and losers and heroes and villains, perhaps it was unsurprising that incomplete and selectively edited footage from the case provided ample fodder for Instagram reels and TikTok videos that were created in the service of narratives that, most often, favored Depp and vilified Heard.
For me, witnessing these scenes in their proper context revealed a picture so much more complicated and, frankly, ugly that the prospect of framing the case in this manner seemed as preposterous as the idea that audiences leaving a production of “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf” should find themselves allied with either Martha or George.
To take just one example: From the witness stand, Heard recounted how she would often return home to their shared Los Angeles penthouse to find Depp nodding off in a chair because he had washed Roxicodone down with whiskey, or lying supine on the sofa fully unconscious with melted ice cream pooled in his lap. Worried about her husband’s apparent substance use disorder and unsure how best to help, the actress admitted she would sometimes take photos of him and share the pictures with a trusted friend.
Or, Depp’s attorney asked, was she just trying to humiliate him? Or, online commentators asked (often rhetorically), was this a calculated and premeditated move to collect evidence she would use against Depp in litigation or for purposes of extorting him?
As if these motives are mutually exclusive.
Having experienced the pain of watching loved ones spiraling in the throes of drug and alcohol addiction, I can tell you why I suspect Heard took the photos, but of course the reality is neither I nor anyone else – perhaps not even she – has any clue.
Last year, so much of the online noise about the trial came from content creators who made specious arguments to poke holes in the credibility of Heard’s testimony or alleged ulterior, sinister hidden motives based on the actress’s countenance, demeanor, speech, and other behavior.
For example, in clips that were often selectively edited or presented outside of their proper context, Heard might have seemed to cry more hysterically upon realizing the cameras were trained on her, which were used as supposed proof that her claims of suffering abuse at the hands of her ex-husband must therefore be fabricated.
Watching the footage in the manner presented on screen in “Depp v. Heard,” it becomes even more obvious how silly these interpretations were. In reality, of course, no one – not even police officers, trial court judges, F.B.I. and C.I.A. agents, trial lawyers or forensic psychiatrists – can reliably spot when someone is lying to them.
However convincing some YouTuber may have been, and however comforting the idea that we are able to see through the lies of others, I’m sorry to tell you the research on this is overwhelming and uncontested.
As Malcolm Gladwell observes in “Talking to Strangers,” Amanda Knox was falsely convicted for a murder she did not commit because “much of the prosecution’s case…rested on the allegedly strange, guilty behavior she exhibited,” which “the public deemed not in line with typical responses to grief and trauma.”
The cameras did not tell the complete story.
Well before 2022, private details about Depp and Heard’s troubled relationship had spilled onto the pages of tabloids like The Sun, which called Depp a “wife beater” in a 2018 story alleging that “overwhelming evidence was filed to show Johnny Depp engaged in domestic violence against his wife.” After he sued the paper for defamation, London’s High Court of Justice ruled against the actor in 2020, concluding the claims at issue were “substantially true.”
Still, last summer’s litigation between the actors earned far more public attention and unearthed far more (and far more titillating) private information, causing, therefore, far more damage than the supermarket rags and gossip blogs – as well as, ironically, the financial and reputational damage resulting from the very defamation claims that were adjudicated at trial.
As a reminder, Depp sued his ex-wife for a 2018 opinion article in the Washington Post in which she had written, “two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.” Heard was referencing the backlash against, essentially, identical claims she made in a statement after securing a restraining order against Depp following their divorce in 2016. (“During the entirety of our relationship, Johnny has been verbally and physically abusive to me,” she wrote.)
In so many cases including this one, intimate partner abuse is messy. An audio recording of one of the couple’s arguments shows Heard acknowledging she had struck her ex-husband but denying that she punched him. Her testimony, meanwhile, detailed serious violent crimes, including that Depp had thrown her into a ping pong table and repeatedly hit her in the face before sexually assaulting her with a liquor bottle that may have been broken.
Of course, assuming their sworn testimony to be true, it must also be said, domestic violence is a gendered crime. And the imbalanced power dynamics within their relationship put Heard at a disadvantage, including in this respect. While both are famous actors, the wealth, power, and fame wielded by Depp was then (and remains, now) much greater.
The disparity was evident from the outset. In the Netflix series, throngs of fans are shown cheering the Pirates of the Caribbean star and booing Heard on the first day they were sighted arriving separately to the Fairfax County Circuit Court. Meanwhile, online, evidence of a sustained and coordinated character assassination of Heard had just begun to emerge.
The smear campaign would persist through the trial and beyond. The actress was called a manipulative liar, a gold digger, an abuser, a violent psychopath, a drug addict, and worse. Some of the most outrageous claims were among the most widely circulated: She snorted cocaine on the witness stand, killed her own mother to conceal testimony that would have exonerated Depp, plagiarized lines from the film The Talented Mr. Ripley.
Creators mocked Heard by lip-synching over audio of her testimony about suffering violent abuse in videos that went viral on TikTok along with hashtags like #JusticeForJohnnyDepp, which was seen nearly 3 billion times on the platform. (#justiceforamberheard earned just 25 million views.) One-sided articles and videos, many containing false and misleading claims, were promoted by Ben Shapiro’s conservative media outlet The Daily Wire through its estimated $35,000 and $47,000 purchase of Facebook and Instagram ads.
“Depp v. Heard” was panned by critics.
“If ever a true-crime documentary needed the usual collection of talking-head interviews with esteemed journalists, law enforcement veterans and legal experts to put things in perspective,” Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun Times wrote, “this is it — but that never happens.”
Others, like CNN’s Brian Lowry, agreed: “How much is gained from listening to a guy in a Deadpool mask offering extensive trial takes is a question ‘Depp v. Heard’ should have contemplated and apparently didn’t,” he wrote.
Several reviews added that part of the problem was that not nearly enough time had elapsed between the events and their retelling. Bustle’s Scaachi Koul pointed to other recent projects involving the private lives of public figures (especially women) that, with sufficient space and distance, found new and interesting things to say about their subjects and opportunities to tell their stories anew.
Ryan White’s excellent documentary “Pamela: A Love Story,” which was released by Netflix in January, manages to find plenty of material about actress and model Pamela Anderson along with the broader sociocultural forces of the 90s and early aughts that helped shape – and were shaped by – the era’s most enduring sex symbol.
The film would have been nothing, however, without Anderson. Listening to her tell her own story, one realizes how poorly suited everyone else was to the task – particularly the leering talk show hosts and journalists who treated her as nothing more than a sex object.
And maybe that, above all else, is the lesson to be gleaned from “Depp v. Heard”: Let’s come back to this story, sure, when we’re ready to cut through the bullshit, reframe the conversation away from the “him vs. her” framing, stop relying on provably unreliable evidence, and consider the broader context of their relationship and the impact of the trial that happened on TikTok and YouTube. And let’s definitely listen to Heard if and when she’s ready to talk about this again.
Until we get that docuseries (or documentary, scripted series, film, book, whatever), I fear everything else will be deeply unsatisfactory and unsatisfying.
Opinions
US no longer refuge for LGBTQ refugees
More than 30 percent of Rainbow Railroad’s 2025 requests for help came from US
I have spent the past eight years leading programs at Rainbow Railroad that support LGBTQI+ people fleeing persecution and violence. What began as a small, volunteer-led effort has grown over the past two decades into an international organization that has supported more than 50,000 people around the world. That growth reflects what is possible when communities choose solidarity in the face of rising hate.
Yet the forces that make Rainbow Railroad’s work necessary have not diminished. In many places, they are accelerating, including in countries like the United States that have historically been viewed as places of refuge for LGBTQI+ people.
In 2025, Rainbow Railroad received a record 20,215 requests for help from people around the world. Over 30 percent of these requests came from people living in the U.S., making it the top country of origin for LGBTQI+ people seeking assistance for the second year in a row. It’s a trend that began following the 2024 presidential election, when 1,177 people reached out for support the day after the results were finalized. That single day generated more than twice the number of requests for help we had received from across the United States during the previous 10 months combined.
The fears reflected in the requests for help we received during those first hours were well-founded. With the stroke of a pen, on his first day in office, the president suspended the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), upending the lives of refugees who were already processed and approved for resettlement in the U.S. Many of these individuals remain in limbo.
Months later, the president authorized a cap of just 7,500 refugees to resettle in the U.S. for fiscal year 2026 and ordered a review of refugees admitted under former President Joe Biden. At the same time, he cut asylum-related services and legal support, making it even harder for vulnerable migrants to navigate an increasingly complex system.
Despite these barriers and increasing hostility, LGBTQI+ individuals continue to seek safety in the United States, often relying on their own resources and determination to flee to the pockets of safety in cities and states that protect their rights.
It is in that spirit that I’ve witnessed the community stepping up to support LGBTQI+ migrants.
Following the collapse of federal programs such as Welcome Corps, which allowed Americans to sponsor refugees looking to resettle in the U.S. Rainbow Railroad launched Communities of Care, a volunteer-driven ecosystem of post-relocation services for LGBTQI+ migrants. Across
the country, volunteers are helping newcomers navigate unfamiliar systems, build social connections, and begin rebuilding their lives.
While volunteers’ commitment has been extraordinary, community-led efforts cannot replace the infrastructure governments have dismantled. Volunteers can offer community, guidance and practical support, but they cannot replace refugee resettlement programs, legal services, or a functioning asylum system. As need grows and public support shrinks, the gap between what communities can provide and what governments should provide continues to widen.
I think often about the LGBTQI+ people Rainbow Railroad helped reach safety in the U.S. over the years. For many, the United States represented possibility, a place where they could finally live openly and without fear. To now see the U.S. become the country generating more requests for help than any other is profoundly alarming.
The question on my mind this Pride month is whether we will collectively meet this moment with the urgency it demands. Governments must restore and strengthen refugee and asylum protections. Volunteers must step up to provide connections to care and community. Donors must support organizations in filling critical gaps. And all of us must recognize that welcoming LGBTQI+ people seeking safety is a responsibility we all share.
Devon Matthews is the chief programs officer for Rainbow Railroad.
Opinions
My trans daughter thrived in Chicago public schools
Washington wants to make that impossible
I am a Chicagoan whose daughter is transgender. But that is not the most important fact about her. My daughter loves fashion, sings in choir, is active at church, and is, by every measure, your classic American teenager.
Yet it is her gender identity that politicians in Washington have once again decided to make their business.
She’s had the benefit of attending school in a district that affirms her, with educators who have added protections for students like her to a contract, in a city that benefits from and believes in diversity.
If the Republican-led Congress that is subpoenaeing the CEO of Chicago Public Schools truly was interested in “inappropriate content” and its impact on students, they would start with the anti-trans state legislation that increases youth suicide attempts by 72%, not the school districts making them feel safe and welcomed. Protecting these kids in school is not a culture war talking point. It is suicide prevention.
But that is not what they are doing. Instead, they are calling to question the head of a school district where Chicago’s values have made our schools safer places for students of every gender, race, and nationality.
The same administration that has yet to investigate the Epstein files but is moving the FCC to put warning labels on television shows that portray inclusive families and characters of different sexualities, is telling on itself in what they think is permissible and what they think is harmful for school-age youth. They say this is about parental rights and children’s well-being, but the parental right I care most about is the right for my daughter and all children to walk into a school building and feel safe and affirmed instead of scared and threatened.
My daughter spent 13 years in Chicago public schools. Her teachers used her chosen name. Her classmates accepted her for who she is. She wore a formal dress at choir concerts, landed a female lead in the school musical, and used the women’s bathroom without anyone batting an eye. When she went to a school dance, her teachers celebrated her like any other student, gushing over her dress, cheering her on. Nobody treated her like a problem to be managed.
That is not luck. That is Chicago. It’s the result of educators who fought hard for these protections. While MAGA has moved other states to bar teachers from even acknowledging LGBTQ+ students, the Chicago Teachers Union ratified a contract that does the opposite. It puts gender support coordinators in every network, codifies protections for chosen names and pronouns, and incorporates CPS guidelines for transgender students into the collective bargaining agreement itself.
Those are not bureaucratic details. They are what stands between a child like mine and the bully who, without them, could decide she does not deserve dignity and hurt her without consequence.
Chicago believes every student, including LGBTQ+ children, belongs in school and deserves to feel safe there. Our city has grit and resolve and a deep sense of pride in the diversity that makes it what it is. I believe that is exactly why this administration has put us in its crosshairs. This is a city that shuts down its streets for the Pride parade, Puerto Rican Day Parade, St. Patrick’s Day, and the Bud Billiken Parade. This is the Chicago I am raising my daughter in. The Republicans in Congress have decided that belief is the problem.
They have already passed a bill to pull federal funding from any school that affirms a transgender student’s identity without first notifying parents. They’re attempting to withhold funds from Chicago and other districts for programs that reverse generations of discrimination and disinvestment. They want to dismantle the Department of Education and have already passed a law to fund private religious schools with public dollars. Putting our school district under the lights of their circus is just one tactic in their political agenda.
I wanted my daughter to read, to do math, to graduate ready for whatever comes next, and find her place in the world. Every parent I know wants that. My daughter recently graduated. She got there because she had good teachers, she applied herself, and she never had to walk into school ashamed of who she was or afraid of what might happen.
It matters to me that my daughter was in a district intentionally seeing to her safety, immigrant students’ sanctuary, and Black students’ success. What they see as a violation is really our city’s commitment to the dignity of all students
What they are running is not a parental rights agenda. It is a defunding agenda against parents, students, and educators who don’t subscribe to their beliefs, and Chicago is just the beginning.
Washington can hold all the hearings it wants, but they’ll never be able to erase children like my daughter. And I pray that our schools will never make children like her think twice before walking through those doors for the most formative years of their lives. Whether they attend a school district that supports them in holding their heads high or one that bends the knee to make them fearful instead is what this fight is actually all about.
Mary Kay Devine is a Chicago resident.
Opinions
Congratulations to Lewis George and all winners in D.C.’s primary
New mayor will have to navigate a hostile president
The primary is just about over and we are about to have a new mayor in D.C.
For the first time D.C. has ranked choice voting. Because of this, we don’t have a final winner for every race on election night. It will take a few days to declare some winners. I opposed ranked choice, and would rather see a run-off between the top two candidates, but the voters of D.C. spoke, so we have ranked choice.
Let me congratulate Janeese Lewis George, the apparent winner of the primary for mayor. Now it will be on to the general election where we can be close to 100% certain she will be the next mayor. I campaigned against her for a variety of reasons, and those reasons still hold. But she will have my support, and I congratulate her on her win. It is my hope she will become a good mayor for all the people of the District. That she will be a mayor we can all trust, and work with. That she will always speak up for the LGBTQ community, and speak out against anyone who wants to discriminate against us. Just as I hope she will actively fight antisemitism, Islamophobia, sexism, and racism. That she will fight for economic equality. So, again, I give her my full support at this time, trusting she will do all those things, because we all want only the best for all the people of the District. So, Janeese Lewis George, I salute you on your win, and wish you success.
In addition to a new mayor, we will have a new delegate to Congress, Robert White. I wish him well, and hope he will work to form the coalitions we will need if we are ever to get statehood. But also hope his first goal as we fight for that, will be to get us legislative and budget autonomy. Then we reelected Brian Schwalb as Attorney General, Phil Mendelson as Council Chair, and Zachary Parker as Council member for Ward 5. I hope they all continue the good work they have been doing. Then congratulations to Oye Owolewa for his win as Democratic Council member- at-Large. Then in the special election for Independent Council member-at-Large, Elissa Silverman reclaimed her seat. I hope those who endorsed her will fare better than I did when I previously endorsed her. I was nominated by the mayor for a seat on a board, and Ms. Silverman said she couldn’t participate in my committee review, or vote for me, as it would look bad for her as I had endorsed her. Figure that one out. Thankfully, the other 12 members of the Council had no problem confirming me.
I hope the people in Ward 1 will get fair and equal representation, from former Metro DC Democratic Socialists of America chair, Aparna Raj, who apparently won that election. Congratulations also to Matthew Frumin, reelected in Ward 3, and Charles Allen, reelected in Ward 6. Then congratulations to my friend Phil Pannell, and all the others elected to Democratic Party posts.
With the new members of the Council, and the new mayor, we can definitely anticipate some changes in how our government is run, and which issues will be a priority. I just hope considering the frustration we all feel with the felon in the White House, they will be able to hold in check some of their thoughts, understanding he can inflict pain, and has shown a willingness to do so, on the people of D.C., if he is challenged too fiercely, and too directly, especially true when the challenge comes from the mayor. He can, and will, react negatively, and we have seen that. The new mayor must know how to walk a tight rope, because it’s a skill she will need when dealing with the lying, racist, sexist, homophobic felon in the Oval Office. Disgusting or not, he will be around for the first two years of the new mayor’s term. I would rather see him in jail, but so be it.
The new mayor and the Council will be working on some of the same issues that have been around for a number of years, and some new ones. They will still be fighting the rat problem, and I mean the animals, and then we look forward to the new RFK stadium, and the Commanders return to D.C. The team made certain promises, and it is up to the government to hold them accountable, including working with the community, building affordable housing, a new supermarket, and a host of other commitments. They must monitor hiring to ensure residents of D.C. are given all the opportunities possible, for jobs at every level on the various projects.
Again, congratulations to all the winners.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
US no longer refuge for LGBTQ refugees
Cool convertibles
PHOTOS: 2026 Capital Pride Parade
Union leader files assault complaint against gay Md. delegate after fight at early-voting site
‘Feeling Afraid’ explores life of a neurotic stand-up comic
War, geopolitical tensions with U.S. overshadow Pride month events
Lewis George holds strong lead over McDuffie in D.C. mayor’s race
Netherlands to ban conversion therapy
40 defining moments in LGBTQ pop culture history
Queer candidates, allies on the ballot in Md. primary
-
World4 days agoWar, geopolitical tensions with U.S. overshadow Pride month events
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
Lewis George holds strong lead over McDuffie in D.C. mayor’s race
-
Netherlands4 days ago
Netherlands to ban conversion therapy
-
America 2503 days ago
40 defining moments in LGBTQ pop culture history
