Johnny Depp v Amber Heard: Why the defamation trial is being held in Virginia
Washington Post computer servers allowed Depp lawyers to sue in commonwealth
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The explosive defamation trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard is unfolding well outside their normal Hollywood orbit - at a court in Fairfax County, Virginia.
Mr Depp’s suit against his ex-wife alleges that she defamed him in a December 2018 op-ed published in The Washington Post titled “I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change”.
The trial is taking place in Fairfax because the online edition of The Post is published via servers in the county, allowing Mr Depp to sue her in that area.
According to the Associated Press, Ms Heard’s attorneys tried to get the trial moved to California but Mr Depp’s lawyers said one of the reasons they decided to sue in Virginia was because of the state’s anti-SLAPP legislation, which is not as wide-ranging as in California.
SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuits against public participation. “Anti-SLAPP laws are meant to provide a remedy to SLAPP suits. Anti-SLAPP laws are intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate people who are exercising their First Amendment rights,” according to the Reporters Committee.
In her 2018 op-ed, Ms Heard partly wrote that “like many women, I had been harassed and sexually assaulted by the time I was of college age. But I kept quiet — I did not expect filing complaints to bring justice. And I didn’t see myself as a victim”.
“Then 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,” she added at the time.
While Mr Depp isn’t named in the piece, his legal team argues that it contains a “clear implication that Mr Depp is a domestic abuser”, which they say is “categorically and demonstrably false”. Mr Depp is seeking damages of “not less than $50m”.
Ms Heard has filed a $100m counterclaim against Mr Depp for nuisance and immunity from his allegations.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments