On How and Why Depp vs. Heard Trial Stimulates Public Sphere: An Outline

as first impression, we may say: "fine! That's a celebrity thing; none of our business" heading back to something supposedly more important. It could be a good strategy, nonetheless the reason is not valid. As a matter of fact, celebrities needed to be chased very passionately by fans and public opinions; it is the logic of fame which is the core of being a celebrity. From time to time when a celebrity feels that public opinion forget her/him, intuited the necessity of immediate resolution; when there is no good ground to lay a relatively attractive topic they often insanely bring on a catchy, insane subject to capture news titles. Even when other ways failed they anonymously leak private, sexual, meaningless video tape to invade yellow media and social media contents. Such a boiling serve well to fame, although it will be foget soon. Public sphere, particularly more serious opinions, usually would not participate in, and should not. Having in mind this particular type, there are situations that appear similar to what I just mentioned while in reality they are not shallow, rather of great priorities. Distinguishing between these two kind is difficult but important. Since these cases affect society, We should know when have to back off and when to step in. It is noteworthy that in political realm similar events occurred which need to be dealt with likewise.

One interesting case of an event that, at first not seen as serious, was Dreyfus Affair in France, strated at 1894 lasted for nearly 12 years of intense controversies among the French, from common citizens to writers and politicians. Once upon a time in 1894, a case of allegedly selling military information to Germans revealed to French military counterintelligence. First, in 1894 captain Alfred Dreyfus acused then convicted for. He was a Jew, which make him very delicious for active anti-Semitic groups, employed La Libre Parole newspaper as principal organ, back then; not only being Jew exposed him to hasty allegations, but the anti-Semitic groups saw him as a convincing basis to acuse all French Jews, profiling them as disloyal, finally take them down. At first, except for Dreyfus relative and close people, no one showed suspicion, doubt or query on validity of conviction; perhaps the only side which took Jewish background of him into serious account was anti-Semitics. On the opposite side, no one said that he was acused just because of his Judaism. After almost three years things have been changed; a counterintelligence officer recognized handwriting of another suspect, who was in a line of suspicion with Dreyfus, on sold documents to Germans. He had been on the list from the very beginning but French army alleged Dreyfus, evidently on cognitive bias. Making long story short, new information along with case buases from the start, inflamed pubic sphere in France dividing into two campaign, Dreyfus on the face of it anti-semtism laid beneath. The tension got all social unit into the battlefield, to the extent that well-known novelist, Emile Zola wrote an open letter titled "I acuse", whose consequences were encouraging citizens largely to take side as well as one year in prison for Zola himself due to "libel". Dreyfus Affair revive badic rights, weaken religious,racial discrimination, sharpen trial and improve judgement accuracy (A brief but informative summary is Linked to in the end of the article).

A case like Dreyfus Affair proves the importance of certain ostensibly trivial instances that bear a significant, blurred value underneath. One could say Johnny Depp case against ex-wife Amber Heard in one way or another represent similarities to Dryefus Affair; not only based on vast, intese debates around it, but rather according to value fight between different adherents and parties which see thier future in it.

So to speak, by now almost all forgot about who is plaintiff and who is defendant, one see herself/himself in one side as if its their own trial. What strongly drew attention to the case is exchange severe arguments between a handful parties. On one side fourth wave feminists, or as some prefer revolutionary feminism, positioned. Those who mostly seek overthrowing allegedly masculine way of thinking and values, harshly looking for remaining "misogyny" under skins of society; by advent of MeToo movement, mostly known with soeak out publicly, bringing sexual discriminations, assualts and harassments to the eyes, followed by narratives and hashtags on social media, organize a powerful social; on a different position is a group of conservatives who are old enemies to all four waves of feminism, regarding the facts they're not mainly involved due to engagement of oter powerful groups who are in the field; a large numerous group is fans of either side of two celebrities who are strongly confronting opposite side, sometimes extend the debate to non-fan parties; and finally, a small number of people who do not belong to any of mentioned parties, calling for justice, accuracy, reducing any kind of discrimination. For transparency and fairness to readers I'd like to locate myself on the last party that defines itself by seeking justice, objectivity, evidence-oriented decision. From now on I am going to give up neutral style writing; because I want to put myself on the same level of those I am going to criticize.

As it was said, practically conservatives could be left out; the fans army to both side mostly employ terms, reason and arguments prepared by first unit, 4th wave feminists on one side, and last unit, who call for justice and accuracy for all.

The argument between these two is based on some value which they are not in agreement on. On feminist side, values centered in "believe women" motto which encapsulat most of their doctrines. By "believe women" they want to convey the fact that "usually" or "mostly" judiciary systems and routines favour men, pushing women back; for instace, they say, in female winner trail, which they claim is rare, male side bring the case on, again and again, until he makes the female defendant penniless, exhausting her money support. Another thing they point to is male misuse of "masculine" laws and procedures, in which there are a lot of emphasis are on evidences, as they say, due to the nature of violence happening, prepare convincing evidences to the courts, judges and jury is very difficult, if not near impossible. A few fugures of thinkers' wing go farther than saying truth telling is masculine, not benefits women overall. Briefly, they think of a kind of revolution in culture, laws, jurisprudence regulations, and values.

As to domestic violence cases, their strategy is to believe woman; meaning in case of lacking evidences, or not able to convince judges or juries this fact should not results in rejecting the case or let the man take advantage.

I, for one, find these denials not fruitful, even rather dangerous venture into new different unjust situations as unacceptable as those they deny. These measures, if be implemented, would have make male victims exposed to any false allegationstion, in an indefensible trial which the man has least, or no chance to served justly. On the other hand, this problem evidently did not leave us to only one option, namely revolution; why do not we have reform option? A practical, efficient way in wich benefits would be maximized while producing no major new problem; if a few problem poped out we can suppose a good resolution, since we are dealing with a familiar system.

Deception, often in terms of lies, is an human ability; it is a powerful, fatal weapon in a society in which truthfulness is a value and rule for majority of its members. We are committed to truth and veracity; prima facie is a canonical way by which we conduct our judgement and acts. In such society overlooking deception possibility makes the whole judiciary a certain failure.

Afterwards, it is not clear if these walk of reasoning, did not replaced misogyny with misandry.

So far I explained the outline with concerns related to points they put on the table. To this point it could make us worry about the future. But there is more, in a different kind with what has been said. To this point we lay out reflective topics, while a couple of 4th wave, revolutionary, feminists day by day get more radical, take strategies which if not reckless, are not in full awareness of consequences.

Recent days, a lot of short or long articles published in media and newes papers which are to an extent worring; in the same time, in accordance with up and downs in the trial the views and opinions posted posted on cyberspace, not worrying, but frightening, as it became a little harsh and has been tried to misinterprete evidences or overlook or ignore then.

This issue will be addressed in next opinion.

P.S: I forgot to add a simple resolution to money exhaustion. That would be solved, for example by founding an financial institute to pay for female victims who are in need; if one found it difficult to do, then a revolution, that is overthrowing whole system is more difficult. For such a problem no need to be revolutionary, which seems reckless.