system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Kyle Rittenhouse has no grounds for his defamation lawsuit against any media outlets or celebrities, and comparing himself to Johnny Depp is laughable.

*Edit:* I forgot to change the title right as I posted, but I guess it's too late for that now.

The newer title would have been **"Kyle Rittenhouse is incorrect to compare himself to Johnny Depp in regards to defemation by media and celebrities"**

**All I want to be challenged on is whether or not Rittenhouse has any right to compare himself to Depp**

I’d also like to point out I added this new title seconds after going live with my post. All of you saw it. Do not act like I’m trying to argue something I am not.

- - - 

The deaths in Kenosha were seen clear as day, by plenty of people, witnsesses, drone footage, etc. Everyone saw Kyle Rittenhouse shoot 3 men, killing 2, and attempting to shoot a 4th, using a lethal weapon he had brought prepreemptively. The context of why he shot and all of that don't matter, and anyone's opinion on whether he's a kid who got jumped or an evil POS white supremacist doesn't either. The disclosed fact is he shot 3 men at a BLM related event. For lack of a better term.

Celebrities, media outlets, and the like are allowed to form whatever opinion they want about a man who shot 3 other men. Lebron James is allowed to mock him for crying "Fake tears" for shotting the men because the opinion is based on the fact he shot 3 men at a BLM related gathering. Articles that mention the fact he shot 3 men and harken back to things like George Zimmerman or OJ Simpson are allowed to do this because it's based on the fact he was acquitted for his actions related to his shooting of 3 men.

I can't find the article but legal experts call these "Opinions based on disclosed facts". The deaths were public and therfore anything said about it has more protections under the 1st amendment.

This is different from Johnny Depp's case with Amber Heard, as Heard is the one disclosing something that happened in the privacy of her own life with Depp. None of it is disclosed. She isn't as protected by the 1st amendment if what she says is seen as false or malicious. Depp lost against the Sun because, like media outlets talking about Rittenhouse, they had a right to form their own opinion on what Heard said while they were under the impression it was true. Even if partially true, talking about something that happened privately gives you a lower threshold to prove malice and libel.

If Rittenhouse pursues his defamation lawsuits, he will most likely have them all thrown out because he won't be able to prove any of the essential elements of defamation.

This is also why George Zimmerman's defamation lawsuits against Trayvon Martin's parents, Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren because all of them were simply holding onto opinions based off the disclosued fact that Zimmerman followed and shot a kid (The former's son) who was much younger and much shrimpier than him with a gun he had on his person, then got acquitted.

I wouldn't expect him to know this, hell I just learned this weeks ago, but this would mean Rittenhouse is incorrect to compare himself to Johnny Depp.

Edit: adding to my argument, since there are also folks calling Rittenhouse a white supremacist, there was an image circulating of him doing the OK symbol with men who were also alleged white supremacists while out on bail. This is a disclosed fact, and people are allowed to form their own opinions on that as well. That in and of itself could be used as evidence to disprove defamation if anyone is taken to trail. Feel free to debate with me on that.
gpt
How do you explain so many people still being completely wrong on the facts of his case?

It was purposefully reported vaguely that he killed “black lives matter protesters” without clarifying that they were white, to the point where many people still believe the people he killed were black.

It was repeatedly reported that he “illegally brought a gun across state lines.” This is both false, and leaves out the important context about proximity and that he spent a lot of time in Kenosha.

The jurors who sat and heard the facts of the case decided he acted in self defense. That there was such outrage about the verdict across the country, based on being completely ignorant of the facts clearly show how heavily biased most reporting was. There’s definitely a defamation case to be made.

The parallel with Johnny Depp is that the media 1) Clearly took sides and reported as news heavily biased and incorrect information portraying him as a murderer, and 2) Provided limitless print space and airtime to opinions that were also biased and based on misinformation and while shutting down any counter opinions as racist (sexist in Johnny Depp’s case).