Yeah but then you go down a really slippery slope of having to remotely diagnose anyone looking to write a column for the Washington Post. You have great insight into Amber Heard's legal state but this is not a universally agreed upon fact and you'd have to excuse the Washington Post for not being up to speed.

Op-eds are different from reporting and I don't know about the sort of "giving a platform to someone/normalizing" is a bad thing. If they knew Heard's diagnosis with certainty than there's a separate argument to be had about labelling her mental health diagnosis in an editorial note. It's certainly something to consider with journalistic law and ethics professors.

I appreciate your comment.