Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love love love that Elyse Dorsey is filing an amicus brief. She survived Jeffrey Wright’s defamation harassment suit and is speaking out to prevent other victims from undergoing the same abuse if the legal system. Dorsey’s harasser even admitted via texts that he sued for defamation to bankrupt his accusers, also texting “maybe defamation for fun but not to win.”

These defamation suits are just fun little hurtful strategies that vindictive lawyers like Wright and Freedman are using to hurt victims of SH/SA, so that maybe they can settle the cases early and they never see the light of day.

Dorsey also compares Virginia’s relatively weak anti-SLAPP statute which allowed Wright’s defamation claims to proceed and require legal defense for over a year, against California’s stronger law which Dorsey argues Liman should allow to protect Lively here against Baldoni’s defamation claims.

Coming from Dorsey, this means something and I hope Liman listens.

Responding to myself to note that Baldoni supporters are already viscerally attacking Elyse Dorsey over on the It Ends With Lawsuits subreddit.

It will be interesting to see how Freedman responds to these briefs, if he chooses to, which I think he will. I don’t to ink he’ll be as aggro as he is against Lively, but I predict a 50% aggression level, still enough to insult actual SA/SH survivors (Wright was fired for cause by his university) in defense of Baldoni. Freedman gonna Freedman.

Again, many of us have been harassed and some of us support Freedman. You are trying to twist the narrative and make Baldoni/Freedman play against SA/SH victims and survivors. That’s not the case at all and is a false narrative that you continue to perpetuate.

The push is against those who ‘falsely’ claim to be SA/SH victims. Many, many of us still assert that BL was not a SA/SH victim by Baldoni, and we embrace the Baldoni-Freedman narrative.


Stop making this an anti SH/SA show. It’s an anti fake SH/SA show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love love love that Elyse Dorsey is filing an amicus brief. She survived Jeffrey Wright’s defamation harassment suit and is speaking out to prevent other victims from undergoing the same abuse if the legal system. Dorsey’s harasser even admitted via texts that he sued for defamation to bankrupt his accusers, also texting “maybe defamation for fun but not to win.”

These defamation suits are just fun little hurtful strategies that vindictive lawyers like Wright and Freedman are using to hurt victims of SH/SA, so that maybe they can settle the cases early and they never see the light of day.

Dorsey also compares Virginia’s relatively weak anti-SLAPP statute which allowed Wright’s defamation claims to proceed and require legal defense for over a year, against California’s stronger law which Dorsey argues Liman should allow to protect Lively here against Baldoni’s defamation claims.

Coming from Dorsey, this means something and I hope Liman listens.

Responding to myself to note that Baldoni supporters are already viscerally attacking Elyse Dorsey over on the It Ends With Lawsuits subreddit.

It will be interesting to see how Freedman responds to these briefs, if he chooses to, which I think he will. I don’t to ink he’ll be as aggro as he is against Lively, but I predict a 50% aggression level, still enough to insult actual SA/SH survivors (Wright was fired for cause by his university) in defense of Baldoni. Freedman gonna Freedman.

Again, many of us have been harassed and some of us support Freedman. You are trying to twist the narrative and make Baldoni/Freedman play against SA/SH victims and survivors. That’s not the case at all and is a false narrative that you continue to perpetuate.

The push is against those who ‘falsely’ claim to be SA/SH victims. Many, many of us still assert that BL was not a SA/SH victim by Baldoni, and we embrace the Baldoni-Freedman narrative.


Stop making this an anti SH/SA show. It’s an anti fake SH/SA show.

Exactly. Further, borrowing someone else’s legitimate victim hood in order to hide one’s own baseless claims is gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TBH as a neutral observer I see all these posts and comment threads and I don't even know which side they are supposed to support anymore. They all sound ridiculous.

Dp. I started off very neutral too but if you dig in at all, it’s not a good look for Blake. But she clearly has some ‘supporters’ who have made it their job to post a lot and deflect from that. That’s why you’re confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women’s groups now taking position against male feminist Justin Baldoni’s weaponization of defamation claims, but sure, he is just a poor widdle victim here.

This is not going to appeal to this particular judge. Very bad strategic choice.

Wow, I think you are so wrong. I’m not saying he welcomes more briefs to read with open arms but one of these briefs takes a close look at application of California state law, which if he chooses to apply CA law I think he will look at. Briefs like this that dissect the law in matter of fact language without making wild, dumb accusations against the parties are generally going to be accepted by judges, including Liman.

Agreed. I clerked for a federal judge and a well written amicus brief on an issue like this was generally welcomed because it facilitated our internal analysis of the law. There may be amicus briefs arguing the other side of this specific issue as well (application of the CA law that protects SH accusers from defamation claims), and that could greatly reduce the work for Liman and his staff. Of course they will do their own research of the relevant law and precedents, but well composed amicus briefs are generally welcome. They focus on the law and not the parties. It's helpful.

Look, it’s the totally organic lively bots. This is not a complicated issue of law that needs an amicus at a motion to dismiss stage.

When no one who actually knows you is supporting your cause, time to for the desperation route.

[Anonymous]

Truth is the obvious defense to defamation. Here, Blake should face consequences for publishing false accusations in The NY Times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love love love that Elyse Dorsey is filing an amicus brief. She survived Jeffrey Wright’s defamation harassment suit and is speaking out to prevent other victims from undergoing the same abuse if the legal system. Dorsey’s harasser even admitted via texts that he sued for defamation to bankrupt his accusers, also texting “maybe defamation for fun but not to win.”

These defamation suits are just fun little hurtful strategies that vindictive lawyers like Wright and Freedman are using to hurt victims of SH/SA, so that maybe they can settle the cases early and they never see the light of day.

Dorsey also compares Virginia’s relatively weak anti-SLAPP statute which allowed Wright’s defamation claims to proceed and require legal defense for over a year, against California’s stronger law which Dorsey argues Liman should allow to protect Lively here against Baldoni’s defamation claims.

Coming from Dorsey, this means something and I hope Liman listens.

Responding to myself to note that Baldoni supporters are already viscerally attacking Elyse Dorsey over on the It Ends With Lawsuits subreddit.

It will be interesting to see how Freedman responds to these briefs, if he chooses to, which I think he will. I don’t to ink he’ll be as aggro as he is against Lively, but I predict a 50% aggression level, still enough to insult actual SA/SH survivors (Wright was fired for cause by his university) in defense of Baldoni. Freedman gonna Freedman.

Again, many of us have been harassed and some of us support Freedman. You are trying to twist the narrative and make Baldoni/Freedman play against SA/SH victims and survivors. That’s not the case at all and is a false narrative that you continue to perpetuate.

The push is against those who ‘falsely’ claim to be SA/SH victims. Many, many of us still assert that BL was not a SA/SH victim by Baldoni, and we embrace the Baldoni-Freedman narrative.

Stop making this an anti SH/SA show. It’s an anti fake SH/SA show.

No. Actual victims of SA/SH and lawyers representing their interests have now filed two amicus briefs supporting Lively. Those are facts. What is false about that narrative? If Freedman responds, he will oppose them.

Baldoni filed a $400 million defamation claim against the woman who accused him of harassment. This is now a strategy in the handbook of harassers everywhere from Bill Cosby to Johnny Depp and now Justin Baldoni.

Zero such people and organizations have filed amicus briefs on behalf of Baldoni.

You don’t believe Lively, but I do, and these amicus briefs call Baldoni out for his defamation claims which are meant purely to punish and discourage victims for/from coming forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women’s groups now taking position against male feminist Justin Baldoni’s weaponization of defamation claims, but sure, he is just a poor widdle victim here.

This is not going to appeal to this particular judge. Very bad strategic choice.

Wow, I think you are so wrong. I’m not saying he welcomes more briefs to read with open arms but one of these briefs takes a close look at application of California state law, which if he chooses to apply CA law I think he will look at. Briefs like this that dissect the law in matter of fact language without making wild, dumb accusations against the parties are generally going to be accepted by judges, including Liman.

Agreed. I clerked for a federal judge and a well written amicus brief on an issue like this was generally welcomed because it facilitated our internal analysis of the law. There may be amicus briefs arguing the other side of this specific issue as well (application of the CA law that protects SH accusers from defamation claims), and that could greatly reduce the work for Liman and his staff. Of course they will do their own research of the relevant law and precedents, but well composed amicus briefs are generally welcome. They focus on the law and not the parties. It's helpful.

Look, it’s the totally organic lively bots. This is not a complicated issue of law that needs an amicus at a motion to dismiss stage.

When no one who actually knows you is supporting your cause, time to for the desperation route.

Dp. But we can’t call them that! They’re real and we are just being paranoid and silly!

I tend to think the amicus may be legit, but that this particular lawyer/survivor is mistaken and wants to #believewomen and see the law upheld (admittedly I haven’t dug into this issue).

As much as she might be a legit survivor, Blake is not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love love love that Elyse Dorsey is filing an amicus brief. She survived Jeffrey Wright’s defamation harassment suit and is speaking out to prevent other victims from undergoing the same abuse if the legal system. Dorsey’s harasser even admitted via texts that he sued for defamation to bankrupt his accusers, also texting “maybe defamation for fun but not to win.”

These defamation suits are just fun little hurtful strategies that vindictive lawyers like Wright and Freedman are using to hurt victims of SH/SA, so that maybe they can settle the cases early and they never see the light of day.

Dorsey also compares Virginia’s relatively weak anti-SLAPP statute which allowed Wright’s defamation claims to proceed and require legal defense for over a year, against California’s stronger law which Dorsey argues Liman should allow to protect Lively here against Baldoni’s defamation claims.

Coming from Dorsey, this means something and I hope Liman listens.

Responding to myself to note that Baldoni supporters are already viscerally attacking Elyse Dorsey over on the It Ends With Lawsuits subreddit.

It will be interesting to see how Freedman responds to these briefs, if he chooses to, which I think he will. I don’t to ink he’ll be as aggro as he is against Lively, but I predict a 50% aggression level, still enough to insult actual SA/SH survivors (Wright was fired for cause by his university) in defense of Baldoni. Freedman gonna Freedman.

Again, many of us have been harassed and some of us support Freedman. You are trying to twist the narrative and make Baldoni/Freedman play against SA/SH victims and survivors. That’s not the case at all and is a false narrative that you continue to perpetuate.

The push is against those who ‘falsely’ claim to be SA/SH victims. Many, many of us still assert that BL was not a SA/SH victim by Baldoni, and we embrace the Baldoni-Freedman narrative.

Stop making this an anti SH/SA show. It’s an anti fake SH/SA show.

No. Actual victims of SA/SH and lawyers representing their interests have now filed two amicus briefs supporting Lively. Those are facts. What is false about that narrative? If Freedman responds, he will oppose them.

Baldoni filed a $400 million defamation claim against the woman who accused him of harassment. This is now a strategy in the handbook of harassers everywhere from Bill Cosby to Johnny Depp and now Justin Baldoni.

Zero such people and organizations have filed amicus briefs on behalf of Baldoni.

You don’t believe Lively, but I do, and these amicus briefs call Baldoni out for his defamation claims which are meant purely to punish and discourage victims for/from coming forward.

I disagree. I think she’s being called out for lying and trying to ruin people. This is exactly what defamation law is meant for.

No one is submitting amicus briefs for Baldoni because there are no novel legal issues to file briefs for stemming from his claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love love love that Elyse Dorsey is filing an amicus brief. She survived Jeffrey Wright’s defamation harassment suit and is speaking out to prevent other victims from undergoing the same abuse if the legal system. Dorsey’s harasser even admitted via texts that he sued for defamation to bankrupt his accusers, also texting “maybe defamation for fun but not to win.”

These defamation suits are just fun little hurtful strategies that vindictive lawyers like Wright and Freedman are using to hurt victims of SH/SA, so that maybe they can settle the cases early and they never see the light of day.

Dorsey also compares Virginia’s relatively weak anti-SLAPP statute which allowed Wright’s defamation claims to proceed and require legal defense for over a year, against California’s stronger law which Dorsey argues Liman should allow to protect Lively here against Baldoni’s defamation claims.

Coming from Dorsey, this means something and I hope Liman listens.

Responding to myself to note that Baldoni supporters are already viscerally attacking Elyse Dorsey over on the It Ends With Lawsuits subreddit.

It will be interesting to see how Freedman responds to these briefs, if he chooses to, which I think he will. I don’t to ink he’ll be as aggro as he is against Lively, but I predict a 50% aggression level, still enough to insult actual SA/SH survivors (Wright was fired for cause by his university) in defense of Baldoni. Freedman gonna Freedman.

Again, many of us have been harassed and some of us support Freedman. You are trying to twist the narrative and make Baldoni/Freedman play against SA/SH victims and survivors. That’s not the case at all and is a false narrative that you continue to perpetuate.

The push is against those who ‘falsely’ claim to be SA/SH victims. Many, many of us still assert that BL was not a SA/SH victim by Baldoni, and we embrace the Baldoni-Freedman narrative.

Stop making this an anti SH/SA show. It’s an anti fake SH/SA show.

No. Actual victims of SA/SH and lawyers representing their interests have now filed two amicus briefs supporting Lively. Those are facts. What is false about that narrative? If Freedman responds, he will oppose them.

Baldoni filed a $400 million defamation claim against the woman who accused him of harassment. This is now a strategy in the handbook of harassers everywhere from Bill Cosby to Johnny Depp and now Justin Baldoni.

Zero such people and organizations have filed amicus briefs on behalf of Baldoni.

You don’t believe Lively, but I do, and these amicus briefs call Baldoni out for his defamation claims which are meant purely to punish and discourage victims for/from coming forward.

You are insane. Neither party should have amicus briefs here. Defamation provides an avenue for the falsely accused to restore their reputation. It’s not easy to prove and there are defenses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love love love that Elyse Dorsey is filing an amicus brief. She survived Jeffrey Wright’s defamation harassment suit and is speaking out to prevent other victims from undergoing the same abuse if the legal system. Dorsey’s harasser even admitted via texts that he sued for defamation to bankrupt his accusers, also texting “maybe defamation for fun but not to win.”

These defamation suits are just fun little hurtful strategies that vindictive lawyers like Wright and Freedman are using to hurt victims of SH/SA, so that maybe they can settle the cases early and they never see the light of day.

Dorsey also compares Virginia’s relatively weak anti-SLAPP statute which allowed Wright’s defamation claims to proceed and require legal defense for over a year, against California’s stronger law which Dorsey argues Liman should allow to protect Lively here against Baldoni’s defamation claims.

Coming from Dorsey, this means something and I hope Liman listens.

Responding to myself to note that Baldoni supporters are already viscerally attacking Elyse Dorsey over on the It Ends With Lawsuits subreddit.

It will be interesting to see how Freedman responds to these briefs, if he chooses to, which I think he will. I don’t to ink he’ll be as aggro as he is against Lively, but I predict a 50% aggression level, still enough to insult actual SA/SH survivors (Wright was fired for cause by his university) in defense of Baldoni. Freedman gonna Freedman.

Again, many of us have been harassed and some of us support Freedman. You are trying to twist the narrative and make Baldoni/Freedman play against SA/SH victims and survivors. That’s not the case at all and is a false narrative that you continue to perpetuate.

The push is against those who ‘falsely’ claim to be SA/SH victims. Many, many of us still assert that BL was not a SA/SH victim by Baldoni, and we embrace the Baldoni-Freedman narrative.

Stop making this an anti SH/SA show. It’s an anti fake SH/SA show.

No. Actual victims of SA/SH and lawyers representing their interests have now filed two amicus briefs supporting Lively. Those are facts. What is false about that narrative? If Freedman responds, he will oppose them.

Baldoni filed a $400 million defamation claim against the woman who accused him of harassment. This is now a strategy in the handbook of harassers everywhere from Bill Cosby to Johnny Depp and now Justin Baldoni.

Zero such people and organizations have filed amicus briefs on behalf of Baldoni.

You don’t believe Lively, but I do, and these amicus briefs call Baldoni out for his defamation claims which are meant purely to punish and discourage victims for/from coming forward.

You are insane. Neither party should have amicus briefs here. Defamation provides an avenue for the falsely accused to restore their reputation. It’s not easy to prove and there are defenses.

Realized I said nearly the same thing as another poster. Great minds think alike.

[Anonymous]

But the point is that the $400M defamation claims which is punitive and a proven legal tactic to bankrupt P and encourage settlement and make sure the claims go no further. He wanted to strike back and hurt her. That’s what men abusing the legal system against their victims do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love love love that Elyse Dorsey is filing an amicus brief. She survived Jeffrey Wright’s defamation harassment suit and is speaking out to prevent other victims from undergoing the same abuse if the legal system. Dorsey’s harasser even admitted via texts that he sued for defamation to bankrupt his accusers, also texting “maybe defamation for fun but not to win.”

These defamation suits are just fun little hurtful strategies that vindictive lawyers like Wright and Freedman are using to hurt victims of SH/SA, so that maybe they can settle the cases early and they never see the light of day.

Dorsey also compares Virginia’s relatively weak anti-SLAPP statute which allowed Wright’s defamation claims to proceed and require legal defense for over a year, against California’s stronger law which Dorsey argues Liman should allow to protect Lively here against Baldoni’s defamation claims.

Coming from Dorsey, this means something and I hope Liman listens.

Responding to myself to note that Baldoni supporters are already viscerally attacking Elyse Dorsey over on the It Ends With Lawsuits subreddit.

It will be interesting to see how Freedman responds to these briefs, if he chooses to, which I think he will. I don’t to ink he’ll be as aggro as he is against Lively, but I predict a 50% aggression level, still enough to insult actual SA/SH survivors (Wright was fired for cause by his university) in defense of Baldoni. Freedman gonna Freedman.

Again, many of us have been harassed and some of us support Freedman. You are trying to twist the narrative and make Baldoni/Freedman play against SA/SH victims and survivors. That’s not the case at all and is a false narrative that you continue to perpetuate.

The push is against those who ‘falsely’ claim to be SA/SH victims. Many, many of us still assert that BL was not a SA/SH victim by Baldoni, and we embrace the Baldoni-Freedman narrative.

Stop making this an anti SH/SA show. It’s an anti fake SH/SA show.

No. Actual victims of SA/SH and lawyers representing their interests have now filed two amicus briefs supporting Lively. Those are facts. What is false about that narrative? If Freedman responds, he will oppose them.

Baldoni filed a $400 million defamation claim against the woman who accused him of harassment. This is now a strategy in the handbook of harassers everywhere from Bill Cosby to Johnny Depp and now Justin Baldoni.

Zero such people and organizations have filed amicus briefs on behalf of Baldoni.

You don’t believe Lively, but I do, and these amicus briefs call Baldoni out for his defamation claims which are meant purely to punish and discourage victims for/from coming forward.

Bill Cosby was a rapist. Johnny Depp was violent. Baldoni’s big sin was allegedly referencing porn, female orgasms, and Blake’s dead dad. He’s not even being accused of being remotely like the other two, and your attempt to do so is frankly gross.

[Anonymous]

And again, Baldoni supporters are already making extremely abusive comments about SA victim Elyse Dorsey for her brief over on IEWL. Those are your people. That’s what you guys are doing, and that’s the kind of behavior Freedman’s tactics are leading to and encouraging. So have fun sitting with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But the point is that the $400M defamation claims which is punitive and a proven legal tactic to bankrupt P and encourage settlement and make sure the claims go no further. He wanted to strike back and hurt her. That’s what men abusing the legal system against their victims do.

No, she made false accusations against him to a NY Times reporter that nearly ruined his career. Publishing false info about someone has long been actionable. Without such protections, anyone can make up anything they want without consequence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And again, Baldoni supporters are already making extremely abusive comments about SA victim Elyse Dorsey for her brief over on IEWL. Those are your people. That’s what you guys are doing, and that’s the kind of behavior Freedman’s tactics are leading to and encouraging. So have fun sitting with that.

I dont have “people” and don’t spend my life on various Baldoni/Lively boards. Unless you are paid to do so, you surely have more productive uses for your time.