Thread by @DevillineS

'Grasping English' Part IV: What is Irony anyway🤔?

#amberheard #johnnydepp #johnnydeppisinnocent
#justiceforjohnnydepp

theblast.com/c/johnny-depp-…

(1/20)Quotes from this article:
"In December 2018, defendant Amber Laura Heard published an op-ed calling for 'changes to laws and rules and social norms' so that women who come forward to talk about violence receive more support."

(2/20) continuing quote from article:
"Finally, "Months later, Plaintiff John C. Depp, II proved Ms. Heard's point by filing this defamation lawsuit."

I want to stress the word 'proved' here. His action 'proved' her point.🤔

So what is irony anyway?

(3/20)
Amber Heard (AH) and her team state the defamation lawsuit itself is ironic in that it is sought by a powerful man accused of domestic violence trying to 'silence' his accuser when the whole point of the article is that women need more protection coming forward.

(4/20)So what is irony? By the first definition it's basically when you deliberately say the opposite of what you mean for humor or emphasis. I don't think this fits. If her lawyer means her op-ed is the opposite of what she states that's not helping her case to get it dismissed.

(5/20)
Maybe they think JD is saying the opposite of what he means in his complaints in the suit? I doubt this too. They seem to be taking his accusations very seriously, even responding with 282 pages of testimony and exhibits to 'prove' AH's allegations are true.

(6/20) So this definition of irony or 'verbal irony' doesnt seem to be what they mean.
Let's try another definition:
I don't think this is it either. I'm pretty sure no one thinks anyone knows more about the truth/ untruth of these events than AH and JD.

(7/20)
Is the state of affairs, JD suing AH for writing this OP-ed, deliberately contrary to the focus of her OP-ed? Actually no, it's not at all. In fact, it's quite the opposite. His action(as her lawyers stated) 'proves' her point. That's not irony, and therefore not ironic.

(8/20)The bulk of her Op-ed does highlight consequences women may face when accusing powerful men of domestic violence(DV). That he is consequently suing her for defamation, fits in with this logic. It is not contradictory at all, and there's nothing amusing about DV.

(9/20)In the wake of #MeToo, powerful men are being prosecuted for abuse allegations:
"Weinstein is facing a criminal trial in January in New York on charges of sexual assault and rape, and has denied ever having had nonconsensual sex."
usatoday.com/story/entertai…

(10/20) Powerful men who hid behind their power and money and paid women for their silence, are being exposed through due process. This is a powerful movement. I'd like to point out that Harvey Weinstein is in fact receiving a trial. He still has a chance to defend himself.

(11/20) One of the stark qualties of the JD/AH case is that the accused has always maintained his innocence and never shied from a chance to prove it. Charges against him were dropped, so he never legally had to defend himself. Evidence was gathered and shared between lawyers.

(12/20)However, when the charges were dropped that evidence had no purpose, and JD's never 'leaked to the press.They both also signed an NDA, barring them from publicly discussing the details of the marriage including the alleged instances of abuse.
Let's break that down.

(13/20)The woman who accused a powerful man of abuse,dropped all criminal charges against him and signed an agreement not to publicly discuss the allegations.She was not forced to do this.The accused always stated he was ready to defend his innocence in court should she litigate.

(14/20) She subsequently wrote an article 2 years later stating, "Then 2 years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic violence." Which is fair to say can be interpreted as mention of the alleged abuse (see parts I-III for discussion of this).

(15/20) Her lawyers have retaliated saying this suit should be dismissed because it is nothing but an abuser 'bullying' his victim, or because the article isn't about whether or not she was abused, but the backlash she suffered for making accusations, or anything to silence him.

(16/20) What that means:
She first denied him his constitutional rights under ammendment VI: the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury

But that's legal. She dropped the charges and legally agreed to stop discussing them publicly.

(17/20) But, she didn't stop. She then continued to reference those allegations when she published an OP-ED in the Washington Post as someone who 'became a public figure representing domestic violence' (around the time she accused him of domestic violence.)

(18/20) She is now trying to deny him his right under Virginia State laws to challenge whether the comments she made are protected free speech or in fact defamatory by arguing to dismiss the case by proving he abused her and is suing her just to be a 'bully'.🤔

(19/20) Amber Heard is an ACLU ambassador. The purpose of the @ACLU is to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to EVERY PERSON in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

(20/20) I find it contrary to the @ACLU mission, that one of its ambassadors can only defend her actions by repeatedly manipulating the court system to deny another citizen his constitutional right to defend himself against crimes he is accused. Legal or not, that is irony.