If you ask practicing First Amendment lawyers how the Gawker verdict changed the way they do their job, most will tell you it had little effect. More than anything, it was a wake-up call that juries value privacy differently than they do reputation. When the dust settles in the Depp-Heard case, the same is likely to be true. The First Amendment is enormously protective of media reporting on credible accusations of sexual abuse. It is telling that Depp did not name the ACLU, which helped draft the op-ed at the center of the case, or The Washington Post (which published it).

Though the robust protection enjoyed by news media may be cold comfort to Amber Heard, the reality is that cases like this defy easy categorization because they are so dependent on the specific facts at issue. Unlike other First Amendment protections (for example, an article that accurately describes a judicial proceeding is absolutely protected under the fair-report doctrine), a truth defense usually requires a credibility assessment by a jury. That can come only at the end of an expensive, time-consuming, and highly invasive public trial. There was never any reasonable possibility of a judge throwing the case out on Heard’s behalf, and those expressing shock that Depp went the distance were engaging in wishful thinking.

Depp has more wealth and fame than Heard, but both parties had the benefit of experienced, well-resourced attorneys who presented comprehensive narratives to the public. Dozens of witnesses were called, expensive expert witnesses were retained, and videos and text messages were presented as evidence. No stone was left unturned by either side. The jury got to hear from both parties directly. It was a fair trial.