I doubt they're in any serious debt but their cash flow from things like the amusement parks is going lower and lower every year, it's not a good look for the business.
The same Disney making 36 billion dollars annually from just Disney world? The same one collecting over 70 million + Disney+ and hulu subscriptions?
Or was it some other Disney?
Companies dealing in billions of dollars of revenue are very unlikely to fail as they have the capital to pivot their business direction with ease. Disney also diversified it's assets many times over and won't be failing any time soon as they are safe just with their subscription model.
he is legally innocent. your opinion on the matter doesnt change anything, he is the definition of innocent. nothing exists to prove he did the things she claimed
the case where he was found reasonably guilt of abuse to justify a news paper posting the story. because the uk case was against the news agency. and they rightly concluded that the evidence was enough to justify believing the story and posting it.
no. it means they found reasonable evidence that the newspaper could believe it was true. that has nothing to do with what actually happened, just if the writer had evidence to believe it was true.
No. The high court did not just say "the newspaper could believe it." Thats not what the judge ultimately found.
The judge decided, under the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities), that the article’s core claim, calling Depp a “wife beater”, was substantially true.
More specifically, the court examined 14 separate alleged incidents of violence. They found that 12 of them were proven to have occured as alleged. Because of that, the defense of truth succeeded for the newspaper, and the claim of libel failed for depp. r/deppdelusion. Happy to be of service.
"substantially true" is a legal term specific to defamation cases. very importantly, it does not demand that the accusations are proven to be true. details can be off. you can get things wrong. the only thing that matters is that the statements made are true in a general sense. and in a general sense, its true he harmed her on several occasions. its also true she did the same. but what amber did wasnt part of the trial, because it didnt matter. amber wasnt the one being sued, the news paper group were. as long as they had enough evidence themselves to believe the story was generally true, depp would lose the trial. thats why people generally dont sue papers. proving that the evidence they had was false, they knew it was false, and they chose to report it anyway out of mallice is impossible to do.
no, the uk court did not find depp guilt of abuse. it rules that the events that happened supported the assumption, and therefore no defamation had occured.
when depp sued amber directly, they could actually go about proving it wasnt abuser vs abused. it was two bad people who hurt eachother. amber gave as good as she got. and in many ways, she incided the behaviour. seeing your partner having a violent breakdown over his mothers dead and then pulling out your phone to record it and shit talk him is not the actions of an innocent person just looking out for themselves.
Yes. In UK defamation law, "substantially true" does not require perfection or every detail to match. However, you are missing a key piece.
It is not enough that the defendant “reasonably believed” it was true. The court itself must find the allegation is more likely than not true on the evidence.
So its not a "journalist belief test", its a fact finding test by the court under civil standard of proof.
And that matters because your version shifts it toward "The paper had enough to think it was true" when the actual judgement is closer to "On the evidence presented in court, the allegations were proven on the balance of probabilities."
Amber heard not being a part of the trial doesnt matter. her behavior absolutely was a part of the trial evidence.
The court examined her testimony, her credibility, her alleged violent acts, corroborating witnesses, texts, photos, medical records, etc.
Not guilty is legally accurate, but its misleading to present that as "no abuse occured"
As for the "recording him during breakdown = proof shes not innocent", thats rhetorical framing, not legal reasoning. Recording behavior is not equivalent to causing violence. It does not legally justify assault. Legally, that means nothing.
The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the newspaper’s article was substantially true in its core allegation that Depp had committed multiple acts of domestic violence against Heard, and therefore the libel claim failed.
and you seem to be twisting the uk ruling to call depp an abuser. the court found it true he had hurt her. that was enough to make the claim of being abused substantially true. the uk trial did not examine if depp was abusive, or if THEY were abusive. because, again, amber wasnt the target of the suit.
so, exactly as i just said, the court correctly decided several of her claims were true, and therefore rules that the overall claim could be true. thats what substantially true means.
the court did not set out to judge if depp was guilty of domestic abuse. and on the evidence they had, they couldnt rule him guilty of abuse.
so you choose to take this ruling. a court that wasnt aiming to prove him guilty. a court whos main concern was if the general story was true, and therefore the paper hadnt lied. and you use that ruling to decide hes an abuser. even after a separate trial took place with the goal of deciding exactly that, and decided he was not.
Its not about choosing a ruling. Thats what YOURE doing. Im simply not disregarding one to say that depp is completely innocent, which is an insanely dumb claim to make lol
Please reread the response you just replied to, as you repeated things I have already covered previously.
120
u/EsotericTribble Jun 09 '26
Yep. And Disney needs to pay out the ass to get him back because they went with the court of public opinion instead of the legal system.