Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Free Speech

Why Johnny Depp Is Suing Amber Heard in Virginia

The Pirates of the Caribbean actor is taking advantage of the state's lax laws that make it easier to file frivolous lawsuits intended to quell speech.

Joe Lancaster | 4.11.2022 2:05 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
zumaamericasthirty486700 | Victoria Jones/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom
(Victoria Jones/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom)

On Monday, April 11, Johnny Depp's lawsuit against ex-wife Amber Heard will move forward in a Virginia courtroom. The case is likely to involve allegations from the couple's troubled marriage, which ended in 2017 amid accusations of abuse from both parties. But regardless of the details or the outcome of the trial, the suit could set a bad First Amendment precedent.

The suit stems from a December 2018 op-ed that Heard wrote in The Washington Post. In the brief article, Heard refers to herself as "a public figure representing domestic abuse." Though she never refers to anyone by name, Depp claimed in a defamation lawsuit filed in early 2019 that "[t]he op-ed's clear implication" was that he was her abuser. In the filing, Depp asked for $50 million in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages and attorney's fees.

What makes the suit peculiar is not the facts but the venue: Depp filed the lawsuit in Fairfax County Circuit Court in Virginia. Depp and Heard each live in California, they lived in California as a married couple, and the article in question ran in a newspaper based in Washington, D.C. In fact, in a motion filed in 2019, Heard claimed that "To the best of my knowledge, I have never traveled to Virginia in my life."

It is not immediately clear how Virginia factors into the equation at all, until you consider the state's weak anti-SLAPP law.

SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. It refers to a specific type of defamation claim filed with the intent to shut down or intimidate someone for their speech even if it is not actually defamatory. These suits are relatively inexpensive to file but can be ruinously expensive to defend against. A defendant without considerable resources may end up acquiescing to the lawsuit's demands just to avoid the hassle.

Anti-SLAPP laws are intended to counterweight such suits. Anti-SLAPP laws are state laws that tend to allow defendants to cut off frivolous lawsuits early without having to go through the lengthy and expensive process of taking such a case to trial, if they can demonstrate that the suit is unlikely to prevail. Some even allow the defendant to be reimbursed for attorney fees by the person who filed the bogus lawsuit.

Depp faces an uphill battle: To prove defamation against a public figure requires demonstrating that the speaker was motivated by "actual malice," meaning either knowingly lying or demonstrating "reckless disregard" over whether what they were saying was true. Regardless of Depp's intentions in filing the suit, winning would require proving that Heard had reckless or ill motivations in writing an op-ed which never mentioned him by name.

California, where both Depp and Heard primarily live and work, has a very robust anti-SLAPP statute. As does Washington D.C., home base of the paper that ran Heard's op-ed. Virginia, on the other hand, has an anti-SLAPP law which the Public Participation Project describes as merely "adequate," with no provision allowing a defendant to stop the proceedings early. In recent years, Virginia lawmakers who attempted to strengthen the law were repeatedly unsuccessful. Therefore, if Depp can make even the most narrow justification for why the case should be tried in Virginia, it is much more difficult for Heard to get the suit thrown out or moved to a different venue in a state with more aggressive anti-SLAPP laws. As it happens, Depp successfully argued that Virginia is the proper venue because The Washington Post maintains web servers, as well as a printing plant, in the state.

Depp is not the first person to take advantage of Virginia's comparatively toothless anti-SLAPP statute: In 2019, then-Rep. Devin Nunes (R–Calif.) filed numerous lawsuits against tech companies, news organizations, and even parody Twitter accounts, in Virginia courts, despite none of the defendants having direct ties to the state. Nunes had little success: In one ruling, Judge Robert Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia transferred Nunes' lawsuit against CNN from Richmond to New York City, bemoaning that Virginia "cannot stand as a willing repository for cases which have no real nexus to this district."

Nunes' lawsuits, if successful, would have been injurious to free speech and a free press. Depp's suit carries the same danger, undermining decades of Supreme Court precedents that hold that it should be more difficult to prove defamation against a politician or public figure so as to promote free and open debate on matters of public interest. In fact, Heard will be allowed to argue during trial that she should be protected from Depp's suit because her op-ed concerned a matter of public importance. But Virginia's lack of a robust anti-SLAPP law means that future defendants without Heard's resources may not have that option.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Texas Prosecutors Blatantly Ignored the Law When They Charged a Woman With Murder 'by a Self-Induced Abortion'

Joe Lancaster is an assistant editor at Reason.

Free SpeechDefamationLibelLawsuits
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (43)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

    Anything an ex-wife says is by definition defamatory.

    (and what do you have against Virginia lawyers making huge amounts of money? Where else will the democrat donations come from?)

  2. Corporatist Remover   3 years ago

    Freedom of speech is when your ex-wife is allowed to torch your reputation and get you fired. Or when Twitter is allowed to hold conservatives to a standard it never holds lefties to.

  3. Nardz   3 years ago

    Frivolous lawsuit?
    Go fuck yourself, groomer.

  4. Quo Usque Tandem   3 years ago

    S...L...O...W... news day?

    1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      Speech in the West hasn't been been under attack like it is right now since the 30's. Not even McCarthy was this bad. To top it all off there's a politically powerful ex-president who's just declared it's his new mission to silence dissent and free speech, but Reason's quiet as a mouse about it.

      Instead it's fretting that Depp is suing his abusive ex for libel.

  5. Isaac Bartram   3 years ago

    When I was young, I was disturbed that my parents were unaware of the existence of the cultural icons that ruled my young life.

    Nowadays I read a story like this, and I ask, "Who the fuck are these people that they are talking about?"

    Then I realize that one of them is a has-been "star" that my now fiftyish daughter had the hots for when she was in her teens and the other is someone I have never heard of, and I realize that ignorance is bliss.

    1. Lord Blastington   3 years ago

      Wow, a very reasonable response in the comment section

      1. Lord Blastington   3 years ago

        Also, tho I'm 36, I'm starting to feel Old because I still remember the days when everyone views Celebrities getting some bad press as a First World Issue

    2. Malvolio   3 years ago

      Whether the “star” is actually a reasonably talented performer — it might be a stretch to call him an actor, but he surely is interesting on screen. The other one? Well, like almost everyone else in the country, including her ex-husband, I wish I had never her of her either.

  6. Lord Blastington   3 years ago

    There is evidence that indicated Heard being the Aggressor in a number of Assaults.

    That being said, a better response would be a proper investigation, and if hard evidence comes up, press Criminal Assault charges to whomever is responsible. Instead of normalizing SLAPP suits that can be abused for Censorship

  7. TangoDelta   3 years ago

    Virginia is for lovers? It seems they're also for haters and snowflakes.
    Does Depp understand the Streisand effect? I mean who reads the WP besides snowflakes and progressive ultra-liberals? I know, I repeat myself.

    1. Liborio   3 years ago

      I don't think you understand the Streisand effect. He's not trying to censor her. He's trying to prove that she lied.

    2. Fats of Fury   3 years ago

      Virginia is for Lovers.......................................................................of Lawyers.

  8. Bill Dalasio   3 years ago

    At least on some level, this sounds wrong. How exactly is it that Reason expects people wronged by defamation or libel to seek redress of grievances? Reliance on civil law as an alternative to regulation or government intervention has long been a libertarian claim.

    Bring back dueling and I can see the logic of imposing anti-SLAPP laws.

    1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

      Not to mention bringing back dueling would eliminate social media, a boon to all mankind.

    2. Vexatious   3 years ago

      If dueling we’re legalized, most of not all of our leftist commenters would be long dead. So I’m definitely in favor of it. Leftists should live in mortal terror for being leftists

      1. flag58   3 years ago

        A duel requires willing participants. How many "leftists" would be willing to face down another person when BOTH have the same weapons.

    3. perlmonger   3 years ago

      But that's not what SLAPP laws do. The whole point is that they're only useful against lawfare type suits that were filed primarily as a harassment mechanism. They don't eliminate the concept of defamation.

      I'm pro-dueling, though. 😀

  9. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

    Why Johnny Depp Is Suing Amber Heard in Virginia
    The Pirates of the Caribbean actor is taking advantage of the state's lax laws that make it easier to file frivolous lawsuits intended to quell speech.

    Good for Johnny, I hope he takes her to the cleaners. Hell, I might even sue Amber Heard, just... to be heard.

    1. Vexatious   3 years ago

      They’re welcome to give her house arrest….. at my house. That sultry bitch needs some tough love. Or rough love. Maybe both.

      1. Social Justice is neither   3 years ago

        Hope you don't mind cleaning shit out of the sheets.

        1. Vexatious   3 years ago

          Is she into scat? Yikes. Still, she’s pretty hot.

          1. Banake   3 years ago

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbtBGKSc0ZY

    2. Banake   3 years ago

      Heard should be in jail.

  10. Longtobefree   3 years ago

    Those "lax" laws were created by people elected by a majority.
    Are you against democracy, Joe?

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      Not everything should be put to a vote.

  11. Macy's Window   3 years ago

    I thought anti-SLAPP laws were designed to keep corporations from silencing ordinary people who spoke up over issues like pollution.

    Why should they apply to a pretty clear case of a woman claiming her ex-husband abused her?

    Either Depp did abuse Heard -- in which case she can defend her claim with evidence -- or Heard defamed Depp, in which case he should recover damages. In either case, let a jury decide.

    Why is venue-shopping a libertarian issue? Is defamation now a fundamental right?

    1. Lord Blastington   3 years ago

      Maybe have a proper investigation and if hard evidence comes up, press Criminal Assault Charges against whomever is responsible.

      Last I checked, Words are Not Violence

  12. Macy's Window   3 years ago

    The question is: Why is REASON always out of step with its readers?

    1. Lord Blastington   3 years ago

      Maybe because they are trying to pander to no one

    2. Banake   3 years ago

      Reason likes to pander to progressive types in order to look cool with the kids.

  13. R Mac   3 years ago

    So does this mean Reason is going to start questioning why suits are brought in particular jurisdictions in other instances? Or is it just for this case?

    1. Vexatious   3 years ago

      Like against Trump? No…. no……. that won’t be happening.

      1. Lord Blastington   3 years ago

        They actually did talk about a Libel Suit against Trump

        https://reason.com/2017/01/10/judge-dismisses-libel-lawsuit-against-do/

  14. ThanksForTheFish   3 years ago

    Heard is pretty hot.

    But never stick your wick in crazy.

    1. Kyfho Myoba   3 years ago

      Brad Pitt & Johnny Depp learned that the hard way.

  15. Larvell Blanks   3 years ago

    The idea that DC has a “very robust anti-SLAPP statute” is undercut by the Michael Mann suit against National Review. A robust statute requires judges willing to enforce it.

  16. Banake   3 years ago

    Heard should be in prison. Man, sometimes I forget why I stopped reading this website, then I come here and regret.

  17. Naime Bond   3 years ago

    These are two private citizens who happen to appear in public due their job. (As do window washers). The constitution does not elevate them into some special class requiring a different burden of proof. In fact it requires just the opposite result. Public vs private was pulled out of the rear end of the S. Ct. and is hands down, one of the all time worst decisions ever written and that decision, not social media, has led to the end of civil discourse in this Country. Someone called or inferred William Buckley was a fascist in a few sentences of a book and paid for it. That said under any burden of proof Depp is going to lose this one too.

  18. Lasciata   3 years ago

    I don't think Mark Steyn would agree that D.C.'s anti-SLAPP law is "very robust." He's been fighting Michael Mann's frivolous lawsuit in the Dickensian Superior Court for what seems like 35 years now.

  19. Banake   3 years ago

    In the end of the day, we should all agree that heard is a bed shitter and if you don't hate her you are a neonazi. Also, this pointless article made me unsub from reason.tv channel. It is bizarre that you idiots consider trans in female sports such a big deal, but then the real sjw show up you losers defend them.

  20. Banake   3 years ago

    Where the hell does reason finds these amber haerd fans incels? (Only incels think that heard is not guilty.)

    1. Vexatious   3 years ago

      Domt k ow. Ugh about the case. On,y checking it out because she’s hot. She a,so appears kind of nuts. With her looks she probably got molested by a dozen uncles before the ever even met a casting agent.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Blame California Politicians for the State's Sky-High Gasoline Prices

J.D. Tuccille | 7.11.2025 7:00 AM

Review: The Endless Summer Chases the Perfect Surf Conditions Around the Globe

Liz Wolfe | From the August/September 2025 issue

Brickbat: Shocking Mistake

Charles Oliver | 7.11.2025 4:00 AM

Trump Wants Harvard To Hand Over Info on Over 10,000 International Students

Autumn Billings | 7.10.2025 5:18 PM

The People Who Wrecked N.Y. Schools Love Zohran Mamdani

Matt Welch | 7.10.2025 5:03 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!