YouTube refuses to take down anti-Amber Heard content

YouTube has refused to take down a channel dedicated to anti-Amber Heard content, claiming that it does not violate its community guidelines.

The channel, called Just In, posts multiple videos each day slamming the Aquaman actor and accusing her of lying in her explosive defamation trial against ex-husband Johnny Depp.

Some of the recently uploaded videos include those with the titles: “New RUMOUR: Amber’s Baby Was Only A PR Stunt To Gain PITY!”, “NEW Texts & Insighter Photos REVEAL Amber Exploiting Celebs With S*x!” and “Amber Caught Attacking New Partner 3 TIMES In Front Of The Police!”

While the channel describes itself as a platform “to bring you the latest Hollywood spill, drama and news”, at least a dozen of its videos posted in the last 24 hours through to midday ET on Thursday were of anti-Amber Heard content.

The platform even recently posted a job advertisement for a researcher to source content that “proves how guilty Amber Heard is”, according to Newsweek.

The listing, which has since been taken down, offered to pay an individual $8 an hour to research content that “goes against” Ms Heard and appeals to the channel’s audience of Mr Depp fans.

“Basically, we are looking for content that concerns something that proves how guilty Amber Heard is as our fans are all Johnny Depp Fans, so they prefer videos about new evidence, celebrities, or something else that goes against Amber Heard or supports Johnny Depp,” the job listing read.

YouTube told Newsweek that it had reviewed both the channel and a number of its videos and concluded that it has not violates community guidelines.

“Upon review, the flagged videos do not violate our Community Guidelines or our advertiser-friendly guidelines,” the company spokesperson said. “Hate speech is not allowed on YouTube. Our hate speech policies strictly prohibit content promoting violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on certain protected attributes. We enforce our Community Guidelines rigorously and removed over 95,000 videos for violating our hate speech policy in the first three months of 2022.”

The Independent has reached out to YouTube for further comment.

The channel’s content marks just a fraction of the videos and online abuse directed at Ms Heard even after the high-profile trial came to an end.

Mr Depp sued his ex-wife for defamation over a 2018 op-ed for The Washington Post where she described herself as a victim of domestic abuse and spoke of feeling “the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out”.

During the televised trial in Fairfax, Virginia, both Mr Depp and Ms Heard took the stand and accused one another of physical abuse.

One of the most damning accusations came when Ms Heard described in graphic detail how Mr Depp allegedly raped her with a liquor bottle in Australia in 2015. Mr Depp, meanwhile, accused his ex-wife of severing the top of his finger after she threw a liquor bottle at him.

The six-week trial became the focus of an intense online obsession, with social media users sharing edited clips of the courtroom drama, memes and conspiracies about the case. The online frenzy was dramatically skewed in favour of Mr Depp, with dominant hashtags including #amberheardisaliar and #justiceforjohnnydepp.

Outside the courtroom, diehard Mr Depp fans also camped out for weeks to try to catch a glimpse of the star.

Before the verdict was returned, experts warned The Independent that social media had “weaponised” the trial.

“Social media has weaponised this trial,” said Evan Nierman, CEO of Red Banyan Crisis PR firm and author of book Crisis Averted. “More people are drawing conclusions about guilt or innocence based on online curated content than they are the facts in the courtroom. And that could have serious consequences for all of us moving forward.”

In June, a jury of seven sided with Mr Depp and determined that Ms Heard had defamed him on all three counts.

Jurors awarded Mr Depp $10m in compensatory damages and $5m in punitive damages, before Fairfax County Circuit Judge Penney Azcarate reduced the latter to the state’s legal limit of $350,000.

[via]