The Washington Post Adds Editor’s Note To Amber Heard’s Op-Ed

The opinion piece at the center of Amber Heard and Johnny Depp’s explosive defamation trial received an update following the verdict earlier this week.

As you most likely know, the jury unanimously determined that the 36-year-old actress defamed her ex-husband three times in her op-ed published by The Washington Post in December 2018 – even though Depp’s name was never mentioned in the article. While the Pirates of the Caribbean alum was awarded $15 million in damages, the amount was reduced to $10.35 million due to state law. But Amber, who was awarded $2 million in her countersuit, still plans to appeal the verdict.

Related: Wait, Jason Momoa Supports Both Johnny Depp AND Amber Heard?! 

And although the court found statements in her op-ed that were defamatory, The Washington Post still kept the piece up on its website. However, there is now an editor’s note included to the digital version following Johnny’s legal win! On Thursday, the publication dropped a message to the top of the article detailing which parts were found defamatory. The edit read:

“In 2019, Johnny Depp sued Amber Heard for defamation arising out of this 2018 op-ed. On June 1, 2022, following a trial in Fairfax County, Va. Circuit Court, a jury found Heard liable on three counts for the following statements, which Depp claimed were false and defamatory: (1) ‘I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.’ (2) ‘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.’ (3) ‘I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.’ The jury separately found that Depp, through his lawyer Adam Waldman, defamed Heard in one of three counts in her countersuit.”

Wow… You can ch-ch-check out the new addition HERE.

Legal analyst Emily D. Baker told People that it was a “smart move” on to add the note instead of just removing the op-ed from the website, explaining:

“Because this case is so watched and commented on, I think the op-ed is still needed for context. I appreciate that they put up the notice rather than take the op-ed down. And I appreciate that they included, with specificity, exactly the statements that were found to be defamatory. It would have been easier to just take it down and say nothing. But I appreciate they’re saying, ‘Anyone who’s reading this, this is what happened.’”

She has a point here! But what do YOU think, Perezcious readers? Are you surprised The Post kept it up on the site? Sound OFF in the comments.

[Image via MEGA/WENN]

Read The Full Article Here