Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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.

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.

It's a relatively new law and Freedman has raised the argument that it's unconstitutional. Amicus briefs could certainly be filed to support his position, and I wouldn't be that surprised if it happened. I haven't read the Lively amicus briefs yet, but I doubt they are filing them because they think Blake Lively is the bestest person. It's about the law, not this particular case. We've actually all discussed earlier in this thread how Liman could be hesitant to be one of the first to rule on this California law in a SDNY court.

[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.

DP. If they are, that’s wrong. But with the BS I’ve seen from the ‘totally organic’ Lively supporters, I would not doubt some of them are fake and just desperately trying to make Baldoni look bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ruined his career? They sought to permanently destroy his life. Not just unemployable. His wife could have left him. His kids could be bullied at school. Shit, he could be banned from his kids’ school or would at least have other parents skittish about him being around. A permanently ruined reputation. This sort of scheme could drive a man to suicide. It is beyond evil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It's a relatively new law and Freedman has raised the argument that it's unconstitutional. Amicus briefs could certainly be filed to support his position, and I wouldn't be that surprised if it happened. I haven't read the Lively amicus briefs yet, but I doubt they are filing them because they think Blake Lively is the bestest person. It's about the law, not this particular case. We've actually all discussed earlier in this thread how Liman could be hesitant to be one of the first to rule on this California law in a SDNY court.

Pp. Fair enough, you’re probably right. But my point was that I can see why no one is running to file an amicus on Baldonis claims for defamation etc. Nothing has arisen that calls for one.

I suspect if his claims move forward there will be activity on the actual malice public figure piece.

[Anonymous]

Awww, u mad because the real feminists and feminist lawyers are siding with Lively while Baldoni can only pull in the fakers and poseurs like Candace Owens, Meghan Kelly, etc? Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That could be said about anything, like the litigation privilege (that it allows you to make up anything you want without consequence as long as it's part of a court proceeding). The sexual harassment privilege (or whatever it's called) is actually not that bad, because it only applies to claims made without malice, so it actually does include some protection for the defamed person as he can claim the person making the allegations is lying and still hold them liable for defamation.

I'm not sure how I feel about that SH law, I think it's well-intentioned and most women aren't lying about SH/SA and it's good to foster a culture of openness about that topic, but I can also see it causing problems in its implementation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It's a relatively new law and Freedman has raised the argument that it's unconstitutional. Amicus briefs could certainly be filed to support his position, and I wouldn't be that surprised if it happened. I haven't read the Lively amicus briefs yet, but I doubt they are filing them because they think Blake Lively is the bestest person. It's about the law, not this particular case. We've actually all discussed earlier in this thread how Liman could be hesitant to be one of the first to rule on this California law in a SDNY court.

Pp. Fair enough, you’re probably right. But my point was that I can see why no one is running to file an amicus on Baldonis claims for defamation etc. Nothing has arisen that calls for one.

I suspect if his claims move forward there will be activity on the actual malice public figure piece.

DP but there probably will be groups who want to file an amicus brief for baldoni's side because they are invested in overturning the law in question. As with these briefs, their interest will be in the law and not necessarily reflective of support for one side or the other.

This is normal when a newish law is challenged, especially in a high profile case that is likely to carry greater weight. And the way Liman decides on the CA law could wind up being a separate issue that gets appealed up even to the Supreme Court, where they could strike down the law or rule it constitutional. Because Freedman has raised constitutionality issues, there will be a great deal of interest in this issue by groups who may have no vested interest in how the dispute between Lively and Baldoni is resolved otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ruined his career? They sought to permanently destroy his life. Not just unemployable. His wife could have left him. His kids could be bullied at school. Shit, he could be banned from his kids’ school or would at least have other parents skittish about him being around. A permanently ruined reputation. This sort of scheme could drive a man to suicide. It is beyond evil.

This. BL and RR are truly evil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Awww, u mad because the real feminists and feminist lawyers are siding with Lively while Baldoni can only pull in the fakers and poseurs like Candace Owens, Meghan Kelly, etc? Sad.

The best she could gather is an individual and a group I’ve never heard of. The big names must have turned her down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It's a relatively new law and Freedman has raised the argument that it's unconstitutional. Amicus briefs could certainly be filed to support his position, and I wouldn't be that surprised if it happened. I haven't read the Lively amicus briefs yet, but I doubt they are filing them because they think Blake Lively is the bestest person. It's about the law, not this particular case. We've actually all discussed earlier in this thread how Liman could be hesitant to be one of the first to rule on this California law in a SDNY court.

Pp. Fair enough, you’re probably right. But my point was that I can see why no one is running to file an amicus on Baldonis claims for defamation etc. Nothing has arisen that calls for one.

I suspect if his claims move forward there will be activity on the actual malice public figure piece.

DP but there probably will be groups who want to file an amicus brief for baldoni's side because they are invested in overturning the law in question. As with these briefs, their interest will be in the law and not necessarily reflective of support for one side or the other.

This is normal when a newish law is challenged, especially in a high profile case that is likely to carry greater weight. And the way Liman decides on the CA law could wind up being a separate issue that gets appealed up even to the Supreme Court, where they could strike down the law or rule it constitutional. Because Freedman has raised constitutionality issues, there will be a great deal of interest in this issue by groups who may have no vested interest in how the dispute between Lively and Baldoni is resolved otherwise.

It’s very unusual for amicus briefs at the trial court level. At the appellate level, it would be much more common and appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It's a relatively new law and Freedman has raised the argument that it's unconstitutional. Amicus briefs could certainly be filed to support his position, and I wouldn't be that surprised if it happened. I haven't read the Lively amicus briefs yet, but I doubt they are filing them because they think Blake Lively is the bestest person. It's about the law, not this particular case. We've actually all discussed earlier in this thread how Liman could be hesitant to be one of the first to rule on this California law in a SDNY court.

Pp. Fair enough, you’re probably right. But my point was that I can see why no one is running to file an amicus on Baldonis claims for defamation etc. Nothing has arisen that calls for one.

I suspect if his claims move forward there will be activity on the actual malice public figure piece.

DP but there probably will be groups who want to file an amicus brief for baldoni's side because they are invested in overturning the law in question. As with these briefs, their interest will be in the law and not necessarily reflective of support for one side or the other.

This is normal when a newish law is challenged, especially in a high profile case that is likely to carry greater weight. And the way Liman decides on the CA law could wind up being a separate issue that gets appealed up even to the Supreme Court, where they could strike down the law or rule it constitutional. Because Freedman has raised constitutionality issues, there will be a great deal of interest in this issue by groups who may have no vested interest in how the dispute between Lively and Baldoni is resolved otherwise.

It’s very unusual for amicus briefs at the trial court level. At the appellate level, it would be much more common and appropriate.

Freedman has directly argued that the law, which only went into effect in 2024, is unconstitutional. Given the newness of the law and the very high profile of this case, it is not surprising that parties who are heavily invested in this law would weigh in at this level. They have no doubt been tracking all applications of the law and believe the potential damage of a negative ruling at even the trial court stage could be very consequential.

Again, this isn't about the parties but the law. The groups filing the brief (Equal Rights Advocates, the California Employment Lawyers Association, and the California Women’s Law Centre) were also involved in drafting the law and getting it passed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That could be said about anything, like the litigation privilege (that it allows you to make up anything you want without consequence as long as it's part of a court proceeding). The sexual harassment privilege (or whatever it's called) is actually not that bad, because it only applies to claims made without malice, so it actually does include some protection for the defamed person as he can claim the person making the allegations is lying and still hold them liable for defamation.

I'm not sure how I feel about that SH law, I think it's well-intentioned and most women aren't lying about SH/SA and it's good to foster a culture of openness about that topic, but I can also see it causing problems in its implementation.

Dp - pro Baldoni and someone who would likely be called a ‘feminist lawyer’ in real life… I work on gender issues and there are so many laws that started off trying to protect women, victims etc but end up being too broad, vague, etc and ultimately harmful. Happens all the time.
I can see this CA law being well meaning but ultimately not well drafted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It's a relatively new law and Freedman has raised the argument that it's unconstitutional. Amicus briefs could certainly be filed to support his position, and I wouldn't be that surprised if it happened. I haven't read the Lively amicus briefs yet, but I doubt they are filing them because they think Blake Lively is the bestest person. It's about the law, not this particular case. We've actually all discussed earlier in this thread how Liman could be hesitant to be one of the first to rule on this California law in a SDNY court.

Pp. Fair enough, you’re probably right. But my point was that I can see why no one is running to file an amicus on Baldonis claims for defamation etc. Nothing has arisen that calls for one.

I suspect if his claims move forward there will be activity on the actual malice public figure piece.

DP but there probably will be groups who want to file an amicus brief for baldoni's side because they are invested in overturning the law in question. As with these briefs, their interest will be in the law and not necessarily reflective of support for one side or the other.

This is normal when a newish law is challenged, especially in a high profile case that is likely to carry greater weight. And the way Liman decides on the CA law could wind up being a separate issue that gets appealed up even to the Supreme Court, where they could strike down the law or rule it constitutional. Because Freedman has raised constitutionality issues, there will be a great deal of interest in this issue by groups who may have no vested interest in how the dispute between Lively and Baldoni is resolved otherwise.

Pp that makes sense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It's a relatively new law and Freedman has raised the argument that it's unconstitutional. Amicus briefs could certainly be filed to support his position, and I wouldn't be that surprised if it happened. I haven't read the Lively amicus briefs yet, but I doubt they are filing them because they think Blake Lively is the bestest person. It's about the law, not this particular case. We've actually all discussed earlier in this thread how Liman could be hesitant to be one of the first to rule on this California law in a SDNY court.

Pp. Fair enough, you’re probably right. But my point was that I can see why no one is running to file an amicus on Baldonis claims for defamation etc. Nothing has arisen that calls for one.

I suspect if his claims move forward there will be activity on the actual malice public figure piece.

DP but there probably will be groups who want to file an amicus brief for baldoni's side because they are invested in overturning the law in question. As with these briefs, their interest will be in the law and not necessarily reflective of support for one side or the other.

This is normal when a newish law is challenged, especially in a high profile case that is likely to carry greater weight. And the way Liman decides on the CA law could wind up being a separate issue that gets appealed up even to the Supreme Court, where they could strike down the law or rule it constitutional. Because Freedman has raised constitutionality issues, there will be a great deal of interest in this issue by groups who may have no vested interest in how the dispute between Lively and Baldoni is resolved otherwise.

It’s very unusual for amicus briefs at the trial court level. At the appellate level, it would be much more common and appropriate.

Dp. I don’t know if that’s accurate. For a new law being interpreted, it makes sense that there would be input at the trial level

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awww, u mad because the real feminists and feminist lawyers are siding with Lively while Baldoni can only pull in the fakers and poseurs like Candace Owens, Meghan Kelly, etc? Sad.

The best she could gather is an individual and a group I’ve never heard of. The big names must have turned her down.

These are the CA organizations who helped draft the law and get it passed. Of course they are the ones to weigh in. You are being ridiculous because you continue to view this as a "Team Blake v. Team Justin" situation. Perhaps take a break while the grown ups discuss the legal matters, and then you can get back into things again when the conversation turns back to whether or not Ryan Reynolds is secretly gay for Hugh Jackman.