The NYT’s Big Lie: Amber Heard Got Screwed, Believe All Women!

The NYT’s Big Lie: Amber Heard Got Screwed, Believe All Women! The NYT columnist Michelle Goldberg is steaming mad about the verdict in the Johnny Depp – Amber Heard trial.

Ann Althouse notes that the top rated comment on Goldberg’s article (by far) is from Mari (in London):

I am really starting to get sick of these partial articles, of the cherry picked facts, of the caveats and concessions for Amber’s side when presenting this trial in the media. I am a progressive, a feminist, work in human rights. I am not a conservative or a wild Johnny Depp ‘tik tok’ fan. I watched the whole trial. I was on Heard’s side, for years.

But it was clear as the trial went on, that it is very likely that Heard has fabricated the allegations — something absolutely heinous to do, to destroy someone else’s life. Please Michelle, don’t be dishonest here. Everyone watching the trial could see the facts as they were presented; most people are smart enough to infer their own conclusions that Heard acted with malice. …

Also:

I haven’t read all the comments, but I haven’t found one that isn’t critical of the position Goldberg takes.

Good to see that truth prevails over ideology for many. But not for the author the NYT puts forward to guide elite opinion.

Rod Dreher:

 This paragraph [of Goldberg’s] is insane:

As a First Amendment issue, the verdict is a travesty. By the time Heard wrote the essay, the restraining order she’d received had been all over the news, and a photo of her with a bruised face and bloody lip had appeared on the cover of People Magazine. Even if Heard lied about everything during the trial — even if she’d never suffered domestic abuse — she still would have represented it. But if the police call wasn’t part of a hoax, then it’s hard to see how Heard hadn’t suffered as well.

Wait … what?! Even if she lied about everything, Johnny Depp should have lost the case because some women somewhere suffer domestic abuse? Depp might not have been guilty, but some men somewhere are guilty, and really, isn’t that all that matters?

Glenn Reynolds:

The “MeToo backlash” that Goldberg deplores is because of people like Goldberg, who wanted to replace fairness with gender-based lynchings.

Nadnerbus:

[Goldberg] doesn’t care a bit about Depp’s guilt or innocence. She is a collectivist, collectivists don’t give a damn about individual justice. They want group justice, preferably their own group winning and gaining power. If lynching an innocent man in Depp goes towards whatever group guilt she has laden upon the group of kulaks she has deemed him a member, then to her that is justice.

What she represents, this stealth communism of social justice/intersectional/CRT postmodern gobbledygook is so fundamentally un-American, it’s hard not to see her as the enemy.

hat-tip Stephen Neil