rileymarie - Tumblr blog

[rileymarie]

[rileymarie]

Art by Carla Cordelia

[rileymarie]

If you’re wondering about the literacy of the human race, just go on tumblr! If there was any doubt I’m living in clockwork orange… seriously what the fuck are you guys ever saying.

[rileymarie]

this is the only kind of man who's allowed to fill out my boyfriend applications

[rileymarie]

March of the Living Trees and Plants - Character Design Challenge by selected artists: Arnaud Chaté, Matylda Kozera, Adrien Cantone, Fernando Muzzio, Christoffer Svensson

[rileymarie]

Idk about literary analysis you guys. It kinda sounds like you crawled up your own asshole.

[rileymarie]

Honestly more women need to go undercover as a man to show them how to properly be one. Teach by example

[rileymarie]

Honestly if you're being abused and you're physically able to leave, just get the fuck out. Even in a perfect world, they'll always be abusers out there looking for someone to exploit who'll put up with it. Make sure you're not one of them. And while we're at it, stop dichotomizing people. They're not the "amazing person" and "the monster." They're just the monster, and the part that's trying to hide it from you. When someone shows you their true colors, you need to believe them.

[rileymarie]

johnny depp and his lawyers: if it was so bad, why didn’t she leave? she was a nag. she’s a gold digger. she’s a conniving manipulator. let’s drown her before we burn her. i will fuck her burnt corpse afterwards to make sure she’s dead. i’ll smack the ugly cunt around before i let her in. bitch. whore. 50 cent stripper. idiot cow. cum-guzzler. flappy overused fish market. shut up, fat-ass. flabby-ass. don't pretend to be authoritative with me. you don't exist. i'm so fucking happy she wants to fight this out. she’s begging for total global humiliation and she’s gonna get it. if she was really a victim, she would have come forward earlier. if she was really a victim, why did she write love letters? if she was really a victim, her injuries would have been more severe. those same injuries were fake, though. if she’s really a victim, why doesn’t she have more evidence? the evidence that she does have is staged though and part of hoax. i’m ‘telling my story’ by suing my ex-wife for 50 million dollars in a state with less strict anti-slapp laws (over an op-ed which didn’t name me and didn’t impact my already-declining career at all) and forcing her to be in the same room with me for six weeks and insisting on it being televised as well which definitely makes sense because as a victim the idea of recounting my trauma and pain in front of the world is very appealing. polanski was wrongly accused and that thirteen year old just wanted money. the weinstein accusations aren’t plausible because it’s not like his wife was some hairy-backed bitch. marilyn manson is a dear friend of mine. i support victims btw

people with one singular worm bouncing around inside their empty skulls like a windows screensaver instead of brains: oh slay he’s clearly a victim and supports victims. supporting johnny depp = supporting male victims. #abusehasnogender. this is a #metoo moment for men :) #mentoo :) this will encourage male victims to come forward :) this will definitely not embolden abusers and misogynists :)

those same people now:

[rileymarie]

person whose knowledge of the trial comes entirely from tiktok videos and instagram reels: maybe if you'd actually WATCHED the trial,

[rileymarie]

Lawyers shared some of the grounds on how Amber could appeal.

[rileymarie]

[rileymarie]

when i say men have the power of naming under patriarchy, this is what i'm talking about by the way. men have the power to rape you, beat you, threaten you, terrorize you, talk openly and freely about raping your mutilated corpse, and then call you a liar for saying this is abuse. the world believes them. this is power.

[rileymarie]

another good pajiba take

From a legal perspective, the Depp v. Heard verdict should be a slam dunk. The jury has been presented with very simple jury instructions… The instructions are simple and based on only three statements from a Washington Post op-ed. Here are the three statements:

— “I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.” — “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.” — “I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.”

That’s it. For the purposes of this trial, those are the only three statements that matter. The question is: Are those statements defamatory? For a public figure, that’s a very high burden. Johnny Depp has to prove:

1. That the statement was made or published by Amber Heard? Yes. 2. Was the statement about Johnny Depp? In my mind, you can imply that the statements reflected her experiences with Depp, but are they specifically about him? They seem to be “about” the challenges facing women — particularly public figures — in speaking against sexual violence when institutions most often protect men (and not “a man”) accused of abuse. But maybe I’m splitting hairs.

Even assuming that the jury concludes these statements are about Depp, they still have to prove that they were defamatory.

3. To do so, they have to prove that the statements were false. Forget about the weeks of testimony regarding the abuse she experienced while married to Depp. Even if none of that was true — and clearly, much of it was — it is unequivocally true that she “spoke up against sexual violence,” that she “became a public figure representing domestic abuse,” and that she had the “vantage point of seeing how institutions protect men accused of abuse.” Even if she never experienced domestic abuse (and again, she definitely did), it is true that she spoke out as representative of those who experience domestic abuse.

4. Even if the jury concluded, wrongly, that those statements were false, you still have to answer whether those statements were defamatory to Depp. How did those three statements — which never mention his name, and only speak to her experiences — defame Depp?

5. At this point, the jury should have already ruled in favor of Heard. But assuming somehow that they answered yes to the above questions, they still have to ask: Did Amber Heard specifically intend — with actual malice — to defame Depp? “Actual malice” is a very high standard that has to be provided by “clear and convincing evidence,” and it’s the reason why public figures so very rarely win defamation cases.

I don’t see how any jury could reasonably conclude that Amber Heard, in writing about her experiences as a victim of domestic violence, did so with the specific, malicious intent to harm Johnny Depp. Where is the “clear and convincing evidence” of her intent? Her motivation was to speak on behalf of other victims of domestic violence as an ambassador on women’s rights for the ACLU. Only a raging narcissist would conclude that her intent was to maliciously harm Johnny Depp in the three above statements.

People watching the trial have focused most of their attention on whether Amber Heard was a victim of domestic abuse. I think a reasonable jury would conclude as much — a court in the UK certainly did. But the real question, the one that the public is ignoring, is whether she made those statements in her Post op-ed with the specific, malicious intent to defame Johnny Depp? I don’t see how any reasonable jury could conclude as much unless those jury members were purely motivated by an emotional connection to Depp.

[rileymarie]

She chewed him up omg

[rileymarie]

season 1 pacey is so adorable, can ask joey anything in truth or dare and in true 12 yr. old girl fashion asks, "who do you likeee?" LOL like tell me he wasn't in love with Joey since day freaking one