Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So above a Baldoni fan is torching Elyse Dorsey, and on LinkedIn people are sending her hateful invective via their comments. This is the treatment that Bryan Freedman and male feminist Justin Baldoni think is appropriate for survivors like Elyse Dorsey to receive.

I’ll say it again: You guys are the worst.

I’m not Baldoni or Freedman, or even male. Nor am I the person who posted the WSj article. No question Wright should have been fired by George Mason for having affairs with students. But Dorsey had a consensual relationship with him for years afterwards, and he got her several jobs, including hiring her to work for him at the FTC. That isn’t harassment, that’s a relationship, and honestly, gross on both sides. Who relies on their married lover to get them professional positions?

As a lawyer, I can’t relate to her story at all. She made choices over years to stay in his orbit. It is all so odd.

So clearly it is right for him to sue her for defamation when she reports the facts of his affair with her as a student at the law school. Because these men need to be protected. And she deserved it, because the affair became consensual. And I guess she should never report it, and Wright would be teaching there still. Or there’s only a limited window in which her behavior allowed reporting it, and in any case the defamation claim was the price she pays. Again, she paid him.

Also enjoy the blame in her above for having her “married lover” get her employment. You know who helps employ law students? Teachers who students have worked for who then write them recommendations. That, and his powerful position as FTC commissioner and as lawyer to several huge companies like google and Amazon on work these students helped him perform, was how he roped these students in. Wright is the married guy with 3 kids who was supervising all 7 of these different women at different times, but yeah better blame the woman for sleeping with a married man.

This is why women don’t report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lolol. Wright was their teacher and he had affairs with multiple female law students. He was in a position of power over them and took them to conferences with him where (surprise!) there was only one bedroom and only one bed.

Newsflash: teachers, don’t sleep with your students.

His basic defense was that his students benefitted from their sexual relationship with them because he procured internships and jobs for them — well, at least until he lost interest.

Wright used to be a Commissioner on the FTC and a law professor at Scalia school of Law at George Mason. He now has none of those positions. George Mason investigated him and as a result he resigned: “ Wright resigned from George Mason following eight allegations of sexual misconduct from former students, and a determination by George Mason University that he violated university policies relating to consensual relationships and professional ethics that constituted grounds for termination.”

But please, yes, go off on how Joshua Wright is a wronged and misunderstood man just like Baldoni. I beg you to do this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_D._Wright

I'm not defending Wright, I'm criticizing Dorsey, there's actual a distinction. Wright sounds like a weird loser who had it coming, but Dorsey also sounds like a grifter who got upset Wright was seeing other women.

Just another woman failing to meet that ineffable perfect victim standard, I guess. Let me know when you find one. Dorsey was nearly bankrupted by Wright’s defamation suit, even though in his deposition he couldn’t explain his claimed damages and wound up abruptly leaving. But sure, go off speculating she’s a grifter. A++

Here’s what Wikipedia said about Wright’s $108M damages claim, which is 4x smaller than Baldoni’s:

“Landry's motion noted Wright's "eye-popping" $108 million damages claim was "more than double the amount Johnny Depp sought when making defamation claims related to multi-billion dollar movie franchises," and quoted Wright as saying he might file "defamation for fun but not to win," that he intended to "Raise the cost," "Break her" and potentially "bankrupt" her, referred to defendants as "b******," and agreed he would like to "make their lives hell." Wright responded that he never instructed attorneys to drive up the costs of litigation and that he "filed the lawsuit because lies were told about me that did immense damage."”

Aww, poor guy. Those hurtful, hurtful “lies” worth 4 times as much to Baldoni.

It sounds like you just don’t believe in defamation suits. Reputational damages for high earners are always going to be high.

Note that Dorsey didn’t sue Wright for SH or anything by she just, I believe, filed a complaint with the school and spoke publicly about Wrights actions while she was his student that led to the complaint.

I guess you guys think it was a good idea and totally fair for him to bring this defamation lawsuit against two of his former students, where he literally admitted he was trying to bankrupt them and was doing it for “fun” and not because it was right. One wonders if there is a defamation suit against women who claim SH that you wouldn’t like. Seems like you’re much more concerned about the men. Which fits.

No he sounds like a scum bag but I don’t think he or anyone else should not have access to defamation because of the nature of the accusations against them. The plaintiff ultimately has to meet their burden of proof and truth is a defense. Here, Wright dropped his claims outright before trial, so she paid no damages and had no trial costs. It actually sounds like an action where Rule 11 sanctions might have been appropriate against him.

Adding she was a big law lawyer. His suit should not have bankrupted her, that sounds llike an exaggeration.

You are wrong, actually. Her insurance company appears to have settled for somewhere around a $300K payment to Wright. The case was also in Virginia as the Depp case had been, which probably figured into their decision. Nothing you or I couldn’t pay, right? Totally reasonable for women filing harassment claims to have these completely disproportionate defamation claims hanging in wait for them.

As you just wrote, she didn’t pay $300,000, her insurance company did. Nothing about her case is a textbook harassment case, it became a consensual relationship where she chose to stay with him, personally and professionally.

She didn’t sue him for harassment. She didn’t try to make any money off of him in a lawsuit. She just reported him to the school and discussed the lawsuit in a news article, I think on Law 360. And for that, he sued her for defamation, and sued the school for discrimination. Yet you are faulting her and defending his discrimination suit.

You sound exactly like male feminist Justin Baldoni. Protect the mens!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lolol. Wright was their teacher and he had affairs with multiple female law students. He was in a position of power over them and took them to conferences with him where (surprise!) there was only one bedroom and only one bed.

Newsflash: teachers, don’t sleep with your students.

His basic defense was that his students benefitted from their sexual relationship with them because he procured internships and jobs for them — well, at least until he lost interest.

Wright used to be a Commissioner on the FTC and a law professor at Scalia school of Law at George Mason. He now has none of those positions. George Mason investigated him and as a result he resigned: “ Wright resigned from George Mason following eight allegations of sexual misconduct from former students, and a determination by George Mason University that he violated university policies relating to consensual relationships and professional ethics that constituted grounds for termination.”

But please, yes, go off on how Joshua Wright is a wronged and misunderstood man just like Baldoni. I beg you to do this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_D._Wright

I'm not defending Wright, I'm criticizing Dorsey, there's actual a distinction. Wright sounds like a weird loser who had it coming, but Dorsey also sounds like a grifter who got upset Wright was seeing other women.

Just another woman failing to meet that ineffable perfect victim standard, I guess. Let me know when you find one. Dorsey was nearly bankrupted by Wright’s defamation suit, even though in his deposition he couldn’t explain his claimed damages and wound up abruptly leaving. But sure, go off speculating she’s a grifter. A++

Here’s what Wikipedia said about Wright’s $108M damages claim, which is 4x smaller than Baldoni’s:

“Landry's motion noted Wright's "eye-popping" $108 million damages claim was "more than double the amount Johnny Depp sought when making defamation claims related to multi-billion dollar movie franchises," and quoted Wright as saying he might file "defamation for fun but not to win," that he intended to "Raise the cost," "Break her" and potentially "bankrupt" her, referred to defendants as "b******," and agreed he would like to "make their lives hell." Wright responded that he never instructed attorneys to drive up the costs of litigation and that he "filed the lawsuit because lies were told about me that did immense damage."”

Aww, poor guy. Those hurtful, hurtful “lies” worth 4 times as much to Baldoni.

It sounds like you just don’t believe in defamation suits. Reputational damages for high earners are always going to be high.

Note that Dorsey didn’t sue Wright for SH or anything by she just, I believe, filed a complaint with the school and spoke publicly about Wrights actions while she was his student that led to the complaint.

I guess you guys think it was a good idea and totally fair for him to bring this defamation lawsuit against two of his former students, where he literally admitted he was trying to bankrupt them and was doing it for “fun” and not because it was right. One wonders if there is a defamation suit against women who claim SH that you wouldn’t like. Seems like you’re much more concerned about the men. Which fits.

No he sounds like a scum bag but I don’t think he or anyone else should not have access to defamation because of the nature of the accusations against them. The plaintiff ultimately has to meet their burden of proof and truth is a defense. Here, Wright dropped his claims outright before trial, so she paid no damages and had no trial costs. It actually sounds like an action where Rule 11 sanctions might have been appropriate against him.

Adding she was a big law lawyer. His suit should not have bankrupted her, that sounds llike an exaggeration.

You are wrong, actually. Her insurance company appears to have settled for somewhere around a $300K payment to Wright. The case was also in Virginia as the Depp case had been, which probably figured into their decision. Nothing you or I couldn’t pay, right? Totally reasonable for women filing harassment claims to have these completely disproportionate defamation claims hanging in wait for them.

As you just wrote, she didn’t pay $300,000, her insurance company did. Nothing about her case is a textbook harassment case, it became a consensual relationship where she chose to stay with him, personally and professionally.

She didn’t sue him for harassment. She didn’t try to make any money off of him in a lawsuit. She just reported him to the school and discussed the lawsuit in a news article, I think on Law 360. And for that, he sued her for defamation, and sued the school for discrimination. Yet you are faulting her and defending his discrimination suit.

You sound exactly like male feminist Justin Baldoni. Protect the mens!

PP again and I think I was wrong about this — Dorsey filed a Title VII and Title IX complaint against Wright and I believe she and her fellow complainant did recover money, though I think it was from the school, whoops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And more: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2025-05-27/blake-lively-support-advocacy-groups-justin-baldoni-defamation-battle

"Asked about the briefs, a spokesperson for Lively said in a statement that Baldoni was “trying to end the nation’s only ‘MeToo’ law as ‘unconstitutional’” and accused him and his co-defendants of being “so focused on trying to harm Ms. Lively that they are willing to shred a law designed to protect all victims just to make sure they ‘bury’ one.’” The statement added that Lively 'will continue to use her voice to speak up for justice on behalf of herself and others.'
...
"[Freedman and Baldoni's] position drew a sharp response from Victoria Burke, an attorney who helped push for AB 933 and is now leading efforts to pass similar legislation in 16 other states.

“I was highly disappointed with that move,” said Burke, who is filing her own amicus brief in the case. “He’s put himself out there as a feminist, and this undoes a lot of the good he had been doing. It just seemed cruel and unnecessary — to try to destroy a law that was designed to protect all survivors, just to go after one.”

Dp. I posted before about well meaning laws posted by activists.

I happen to know one of the orgs quoted here fairly well.

I am 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

I am also a lawyer who has worked on VAWA issues for immigrant victims of domestic violence so I match your “feminist lawyer” cred and note that i have done that work, for which I have won Bar recognition, pro bono.

I hope the law CA will survive because abusers should not be able to use defamation suits to bankrupt their victims and scare them into settling.

This matches Baldoni’s actions here. Have he and his codefendants really suffered 400M in damages? No, this is Freedman’s punitive effort to punish Lively and force a settlement, which has been clear from the beginning.

This also fully comports with Baldini’s MO during the filming and the subsequent smear. He’s a male feminist with rigid views over how all normal women give birth fully naked. (I did not, and I bet you didn’t either.) He’s a male feminist who wanted to feel fully protected by his PR team in going after Lively — no bots because that might be detectable but something alone the lines of the smear conducted against Hailey Bieber is what he was after. He a male feminist who apparently believes this California law which was passed to protect victims of sexual harassment should be struck down as unconstitutional. I guess those victims don’t need quite that much protection, right, Justin?

Justin Baldini, male feminist, fighting hard to strike down protections for sexual harassment victims that took years to pass and here hard fought and hard won.

Maybe he can do a podcast about this. Justin Baldoni: Enough.

Pp let’s be honest here. You’re clearly not the random person you say you are. But for kicks I’ll assume for now that you are … so that’s great that you’ve done the work pro bono. But that also indicates you don’t have all that much experience. Certainly not enough to know how damages numbers work in litigation bc you/your partner strangely keep focusing on Baldoni ‘deserving 400m’ as if that’s how it works. A jury will decide those damages. Although I suspect you do know that at this point but it’s part of your messaging campaign to make Baldoni seem greedy. And here you are trying to align Blake with sexual harassment victims, which she clearly isn’t.

So she’s trying to use a law meant for true victims to further harass innocent people.

In any event, laws can be well meaning but written poorly with unintended consequences. This would seem to be one of them. This is litigation abuse…. On Blake’s part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So above a Baldoni fan is torching Elyse Dorsey, and on LinkedIn people are sending her hateful invective via their comments. This is the treatment that Bryan Freedman and male feminist Justin Baldoni think is appropriate for survivors like Elyse Dorsey to receive.

I’ll say it again: You guys are the worst.

Show me where anyone who is actually related to Baldoni is doing that. Not happening and you know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And more: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2025-05-27/blake-lively-support-advocacy-groups-justin-baldoni-defamation-battle

"Asked about the briefs, a spokesperson for Lively said in a statement that Baldoni was “trying to end the nation’s only ‘MeToo’ law as ‘unconstitutional’” and accused him and his co-defendants of being “so focused on trying to harm Ms. Lively that they are willing to shred a law designed to protect all victims just to make sure they ‘bury’ one.’” The statement added that Lively 'will continue to use her voice to speak up for justice on behalf of herself and others.'
...
"[Freedman and Baldoni's] position drew a sharp response from Victoria Burke, an attorney who helped push for AB 933 and is now leading efforts to pass similar legislation in 16 other states.

“I was highly disappointed with that move,” said Burke, who is filing her own amicus brief in the case. “He’s put himself out there as a feminist, and this undoes a lot of the good he had been doing. It just seemed cruel and unnecessary — to try to destroy a law that was designed to protect all survivors, just to go after one.”

Dp. I posted before about well meaning laws posted by activists.

I happen to know one of the orgs quoted here fairly well.

I am 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

I am also a lawyer who has worked on VAWA issues for immigrant victims of domestic violence so I match your “feminist lawyer” cred and note that i have done that work, for which I have won Bar recognition, pro bono.

I hope the law CA will survive because abusers should not be able to use defamation suits to bankrupt their victims and scare them into settling.

This matches Baldoni’s actions here. Have he and his codefendants really suffered 400M in damages? No, this is Freedman’s punitive effort to punish Lively and force a settlement, which has been clear from the beginning.

This also fully comports with Baldini’s MO during the filming and the subsequent smear. He’s a male feminist with rigid views over how all normal women give birth fully naked. (I did not, and I bet you didn’t either.) He’s a male feminist who wanted to feel fully protected by his PR team in going after Lively — no bots because that might be detectable but something alone the lines of the smear conducted against Hailey Bieber is what he was after. He a male feminist who apparently believes this California law which was passed to protect victims of sexual harassment should be struck down as unconstitutional. I guess those victims don’t need quite that much protection, right, Justin?

Justin Baldini, male feminist, fighting hard to strike down protections for sexual harassment victims that took years to pass and here hard fought and hard won.

Maybe he can do a podcast about this. Justin Baldoni: Enough.

Washington Mom, did you really think your writing is not entirely recognizable at this point.

Aw, gee, thanks, I feel like the Velveteen Rabbit who got loved into being Real to you finally. Was it only this morning that you all thought I was a bot/paid shill? *sheds single tear*

. No. Some of us still feel this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So above a Baldoni fan is torching Elyse Dorsey, and on LinkedIn people are sending her hateful invective via their comments. This is the treatment that Bryan Freedman and male feminist Justin Baldoni think is appropriate for survivors like Elyse Dorsey to receive.

I’ll say it again: You guys are the worst.

I’m not Baldoni or Freedman, or even male. Nor am I the person who posted the WSj article. No question Wright should have been fired by George Mason for having affairs with students. But Dorsey had a consensual relationship with him for years afterwards, and he got her several jobs, including hiring her to work for him at the FTC. That isn’t harassment, that’s a relationship, and honestly, gross on both sides. Who relies on their married lover to get them professional positions?

As a lawyer, I can’t relate to her story at all. She made choices over years to stay in his orbit. It is all so odd.

So clearly it is right for him to sue her for defamation when she reports the facts of his affair with her as a student at the law school. Because these men need to be protected. And she deserved it, because the affair became consensual. And I guess she should never report it, and Wright would be teaching there still. Or there’s only a limited window in which her behavior allowed reporting it, and in any case the defamation claim was the price she pays. Again, she paid him.

Also enjoy the blame in her above for having her “married lover” get her employment. You know who helps employ law students? Teachers who students have worked for who then write them recommendations. That, and his powerful position as FTC commissioner and as lawyer to several huge companies like google and Amazon on work these students helped him perform, was how he roped these students in. Wright is the married guy with 3 kids who was supervising all 7 of these different women at different times, but yeah better blame the woman for sleeping with a married man.

This is why women don’t report.

This. What the people criticizing Dorsey don't seem to get us that she actually sacrificed her rep to come forward and talk about her experiences with Wright while in law school. She knew people would dig into her relationship with him after, that it would undermine her professional rep, and that Wright would likely release embarrassing texts/emails from her, which he did. But she came forward to support the case against Wright at GM, which helped get him fired, and expose him for what he is, which is a jerk who preys on female law students for sex while lording his power over their lives.

Dorsey could have stayed silent, and it would probably have been better for her professionally. She did the right thing and spoke up, told the TRUTH, and was rewarded with a huge defamation lawsuit (again, for simply telling the truth) and even now people like you are talking about the sordid details if her affair online and calling her a grifter.

You'd hope people would look at that and maybe a lightbulb would go off about how high dollar defamation lawsuits are being used to silence people who absolutely should come forward and tell the truth if their experience, but I'm sure instead you'll just spend 20 pages calling Dorsey names, accusing her of mental illness, digging into her other relationships (omg, is her husband gay for Hugh Jackman!?) etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So above a Baldoni fan is torching Elyse Dorsey, and on LinkedIn people are sending her hateful invective via their comments. This is the treatment that Bryan Freedman and male feminist Justin Baldoni think is appropriate for survivors like Elyse Dorsey to receive.

I’ll say it again: You guys are the worst.

I’m not Baldoni or Freedman, or even male. Nor am I the person who posted the WSj article. No question Wright should have been fired by George Mason for having affairs with students. But Dorsey had a consensual relationship with him for years afterwards, and he got her several jobs, including hiring her to work for him at the FTC. That isn’t harassment, that’s a relationship, and honestly, gross on both sides. Who relies on their married lover to get them professional positions?

As a lawyer, I can’t relate to her story at all. She made choices over years to stay in his orbit. It is all so odd.

So clearly it is right for him to sue her for defamation when she reports the facts of his affair with her as a student at the law school. Because these men need to be protected. And she deserved it, because the affair became consensual. And I guess she should never report it, and Wright would be teaching there still. Or there’s only a limited window in which her behavior allowed reporting it, and in any case the defamation claim was the price she pays. Again, she paid him.

Also enjoy the blame in her above for having her “married lover” get her employment. You know who helps employ law students? Teachers who students have worked for who then write them recommendations. That, and his powerful position as FTC commissioner and as lawyer to several huge companies like google and Amazon on work these students helped him perform, was how he roped these students in. Wright is the married guy with 3 kids who was supervising all 7 of these different women at different times, but yeah better blame the woman for sleeping with a married man.

This is why women don’t report.

This. What the people criticizing Dorsey don't seem to get us that she actually sacrificed her rep to come forward and talk about her experiences with Wright while in law school. She knew people would dig into her relationship with him after, that it would undermine her professional rep, and that Wright would likely release embarrassing texts/emails from her, which he did. But she came forward to support the case against Wright at GM, which helped get him fired, and expose him for what he is, which is a jerk who preys on female law students for sex while lording his power over their lives.

Dorsey could have stayed silent, and it would probably have been better for her professionally. She did the right thing and spoke up, told the TRUTH, and was rewarded with a huge defamation lawsuit (again, for simply telling the truth) and even now people like you are talking about the sordid details if her affair online and calling her a grifter.

You'd hope people would look at that and maybe a lightbulb would go off about how high dollar defamation lawsuits are being used to silence people who absolutely should come forward and tell the truth if their experience, but I'm sure instead you'll just spend 20 pages calling Dorsey names, accusing her of mental illness, digging into her other relationships (omg, is her husband gay for Hugh Jackman!?) etc.

No one is doing that. Someone commented on her ongoing relationship, which is fair.

I don’t know this story well, but Dorsey strikes me as a victim, albeit imperfect which is normal. The point is that BL is not. She wasn’t assaulted, or harassed, she wasn’t convinced to sleep with a man who had power over her. None of those things happened.

Which of course you know

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So above a Baldoni fan is torching Elyse Dorsey, and on LinkedIn people are sending her hateful invective via their comments. This is the treatment that Bryan Freedman and male feminist Justin Baldoni think is appropriate for survivors like Elyse Dorsey to receive.

I’ll say it again: You guys are the worst.

I’m not Baldoni or Freedman, or even male. Nor am I the person who posted the WSj article. No question Wright should have been fired by George Mason for having affairs with students. But Dorsey had a consensual relationship with him for years afterwards, and he got her several jobs, including hiring her to work for him at the FTC. That isn’t harassment, that’s a relationship, and honestly, gross on both sides. Who relies on their married lover to get them professional positions?

As a lawyer, I can’t relate to her story at all. She made choices over years to stay in his orbit. It is all so odd.

So clearly it is right for him to sue her for defamation when she reports the facts of his affair with her as a student at the law school. Because these men need to be protected. And she deserved it, because the affair became consensual. And I guess she should never report it, and Wright would be teaching there still. Or there’s only a limited window in which her behavior allowed reporting it, and in any case the defamation claim was the price she pays. Again, she paid him.

Also enjoy the blame in her above for having her “married lover” get her employment. You know who helps employ law students? Teachers who students have worked for who then write them recommendations. That, and his powerful position as FTC commissioner and as lawyer to several huge companies like google and Amazon on work these students helped him perform, was how he roped these students in. Wright is the married guy with 3 kids who was supervising all 7 of these different women at different times, but yeah better blame the woman for sleeping with a married man.

This is why women don’t report.

This. What the people criticizing Dorsey don't seem to get us that she actually sacrificed her rep to come forward and talk about her experiences with Wright while in law school. She knew people would dig into her relationship with him after, that it would undermine her professional rep, and that Wright would likely release embarrassing texts/emails from her, which he did. But she came forward to support the case against Wright at GM, which helped get him fired, and expose him for what he is, which is a jerk who preys on female law students for sex while lording his power over their lives.

Dorsey could have stayed silent, and it would probably have been better for her professionally. She did the right thing and spoke up, told the TRUTH, and was rewarded with a huge defamation lawsuit (again, for simply telling the truth) and even now people like you are talking about the sordid details if her affair online and calling her a grifter.

You'd hope people would look at that and maybe a lightbulb would go off about how high dollar defamation lawsuits are being used to silence people who absolutely should come forward and tell the truth if their experience, but I'm sure instead you'll just spend 20 pages calling Dorsey names, accusing her of mental illness, digging into her other relationships (omg, is her husband gay for Hugh Jackman!?) etc.

No one is doing that. Someone commented on her ongoing relationship, which is fair.

I don’t know this story well, but Dorsey strikes me as a victim, albeit imperfect which is normal. The point is that BL is not. She wasn’t assaulted, or harassed, she wasn’t convinced to sleep with a man who had power over her. None of those things happened.

Which of course you know

This! The constant false equivalency is exactly why Blake needs to pay up. Justin is constantly being mentioned alongside actual predators and harassers. Blake has absolutely ruined him.

If Blake had a valid claim, she would’ve handled it more professionally. Take the current Kevin Costner situation, for instance. A stunt double is suing because she said policies weren’t followed during an intimate scene in a movie he was directing. She’s not smearing him personally. His name and brand aren’t inextricably linked to this situation. It’s more of a “there was malpractice on the set” versus he’s a “predator”. See the difference? And if true, this situation is worse than what happened to Blake.

If you have a real SH claim, you file a complaint and work through the proper channels. You don’t get your lawyers to write up a one sided non negotiable contract and then use it to bully the other party for infinity. You certainly don’t file a sham lawsuit to get someone’s personal text messages and smear them in the NYT. There’s so much malice here.

Blake’s a horrible person and it’s disgusting to watch her use the pain of real victims to advance her malicious agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So above a Baldoni fan is torching Elyse Dorsey, and on LinkedIn people are sending her hateful invective via their comments. This is the treatment that Bryan Freedman and male feminist Justin Baldoni think is appropriate for survivors like Elyse Dorsey to receive.

I’ll say it again: You guys are the worst.

I’m not Baldoni or Freedman, or even male. Nor am I the person who posted the WSj article. No question Wright should have been fired by George Mason for having affairs with students. But Dorsey had a consensual relationship with him for years afterwards, and he got her several jobs, including hiring her to work for him at the FTC. That isn’t harassment, that’s a relationship, and honestly, gross on both sides. Who relies on their married lover to get them professional positions?

As a lawyer, I can’t relate to her story at all. She made choices over years to stay in his orbit. It is all so odd.

So clearly it is right for him to sue her for defamation when she reports the facts of his affair with her as a student at the law school. Because these men need to be protected. And she deserved it, because the affair became consensual. And I guess she should never report it, and Wright would be teaching there still. Or there’s only a limited window in which her behavior allowed reporting it, and in any case the defamation claim was the price she pays. Again, she paid him.

Also enjoy the blame in her above for having her “married lover” get her employment. You know who helps employ law students? Teachers who students have worked for who then write them recommendations. That, and his powerful position as FTC commissioner and as lawyer to several huge companies like google and Amazon on work these students helped him perform, was how he roped these students in. Wright is the married guy with 3 kids who was supervising all 7 of these different women at different times, but yeah better blame the woman for sleeping with a married man.

This is why women don’t report.

This. What the people criticizing Dorsey don't seem to get us that she actually sacrificed her rep to come forward and talk about her experiences with Wright while in law school. She knew people would dig into her relationship with him after, that it would undermine her professional rep, and that Wright would likely release embarrassing texts/emails from her, which he did. But she came forward to support the case against Wright at GM, which helped get him fired, and expose him for what he is, which is a jerk who preys on female law students for sex while lording his power over their lives.

Dorsey could have stayed silent, and it would probably have been better for her professionally. She did the right thing and spoke up, told the TRUTH, and was rewarded with a huge defamation lawsuit (again, for simply telling the truth) and even now people like you are talking about the sordid details if her affair online and calling her a grifter.

You'd hope people would look at that and maybe a lightbulb would go off about how high dollar defamation lawsuits are being used to silence people who absolutely should come forward and tell the truth if their experience, but I'm sure instead you'll just spend 20 pages calling Dorsey names, accusing her of mental illness, digging into her other relationships (omg, is her husband gay for Hugh Jackman!?) etc.

Right. You guys don’t like Dorsey but had she not spoken up, Wright would likely still be teaching at George Mason, might still be a commissioner at the FTC, would stop be repping and advising corporate giants like Amazon and Google in their antitrust suits.

The point is that these big dollar defamation suits against women who sue or complain about sexual harassment are a new tool in the toolbox of harassers. Freedman knew this and employed it here. It’s both a punishment and a leverage and negotiating tool.

It is completely ridiculous that the guy who signed a contract promising not to retaliate against Lively is now suing her for defamation for 400 million dollars. That’s 8 times as much as Depp sued Heard for and that involved the Pirates franchise. Baldoni, the enlightened male feminist, filed his lawsuit as a retaliatory punishment and a threat. I can’t believe you guys don’t understand this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So above a Baldoni fan is torching Elyse Dorsey, and on LinkedIn people are sending her hateful invective via their comments. This is the treatment that Bryan Freedman and male feminist Justin Baldoni think is appropriate for survivors like Elyse Dorsey to receive.

I’ll say it again: You guys are the worst.

I’m not Baldoni or Freedman, or even male. Nor am I the person who posted the WSj article. No question Wright should have been fired by George Mason for having affairs with students. But Dorsey had a consensual relationship with him for years afterwards, and he got her several jobs, including hiring her to work for him at the FTC. That isn’t harassment, that’s a relationship, and honestly, gross on both sides. Who relies on their married lover to get them professional positions?

As a lawyer, I can’t relate to her story at all. She made choices over years to stay in his orbit. It is all so odd.

So clearly it is right for him to sue her for defamation when she reports the facts of his affair with her as a student at the law school. Because these men need to be protected. And she deserved it, because the affair became consensual. And I guess she should never report it, and Wright would be teaching there still. Or there’s only a limited window in which her behavior allowed reporting it, and in any case the defamation claim was the price she pays. Again, she paid him.

Also enjoy the blame in her above for having her “married lover” get her employment. You know who helps employ law students? Teachers who students have worked for who then write them recommendations. That, and his powerful position as FTC commissioner and as lawyer to several huge companies like google and Amazon on work these students helped him perform, was how he roped these students in. Wright is the married guy with 3 kids who was supervising all 7 of these different women at different times, but yeah better blame the woman for sleeping with a married man.

This is why women don’t report.

This. What the people criticizing Dorsey don't seem to get us that she actually sacrificed her rep to come forward and talk about her experiences with Wright while in law school. She knew people would dig into her relationship with him after, that it would undermine her professional rep, and that Wright would likely release embarrassing texts/emails from her, which he did. But she came forward to support the case against Wright at GM, which helped get him fired, and expose him for what he is, which is a jerk who preys on female law students for sex while lording his power over their lives.

Dorsey could have stayed silent, and it would probably have been better for her professionally. She did the right thing and spoke up, told the TRUTH, and was rewarded with a huge defamation lawsuit (again, for simply telling the truth) and even now people like you are talking about the sordid details if her affair online and calling her a grifter.

You'd hope people would look at that and maybe a lightbulb would go off about how high dollar defamation lawsuits are being used to silence people who absolutely should come forward and tell the truth if their experience, but I'm sure instead you'll just spend 20 pages calling Dorsey names, accusing her of mental illness, digging into her other relationships (omg, is her husband gay for Hugh Jackman!?) etc.

No one is doing that. Someone commented on her ongoing relationship, which is fair.

I don’t know this story well, but Dorsey strikes me as a victim, albeit imperfect which is normal. The point is that BL is not. She wasn’t assaulted, or harassed, she wasn’t convinced to sleep with a man who had power over her. None of those things happened.

Which of course you know

This! The constant false equivalency is exactly why Blake needs to pay up. Justin is constantly being mentioned alongside actual predators and harassers. Blake has absolutely ruined him.

If Blake had a valid claim, she would’ve handled it more professionally. Take the current Kevin Costner situation, for instance. A stunt double is suing because she said policies weren’t followed during an intimate scene in a movie he was directing. She’s not smearing him personally. His name and brand aren’t inextricably linked to this situation. It’s more of a “there was malpractice on the set” versus he’s a “predator”. See the difference? And if true, this situation is worse than what happened to Blake.

If you have a real SH claim, you file a complaint and work through the proper channels. You don’t get your lawyers to write up a one sided non negotiable contract and then use it to bully the other party for infinity. You certainly don’t file a sham lawsuit to get someone’s personal text messages and smear them in the NYT. There’s so much malice here.

Blake’s a horrible person and it’s disgusting to watch her use the pain of real victims to advance her malicious agenda.

Seems reasonable to file a lawsuit to me when you find out that under the radar and without your knowledge, he had hatched a plan to smear you, that was similar to smear campaigns launched against other women who had complained about sexual harassment. Actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So above a Baldoni fan is torching Elyse Dorsey, and on LinkedIn people are sending her hateful invective via their comments. This is the treatment that Bryan Freedman and male feminist Justin Baldoni think is appropriate for survivors like Elyse Dorsey to receive.

I’ll say it again: You guys are the worst.

I’m not Baldoni or Freedman, or even male. Nor am I the person who posted the WSj article. No question Wright should have been fired by George Mason for having affairs with students. But Dorsey had a consensual relationship with him for years afterwards, and he got her several jobs, including hiring her to work for him at the FTC. That isn’t harassment, that’s a relationship, and honestly, gross on both sides. Who relies on their married lover to get them professional positions?

As a lawyer, I can’t relate to her story at all. She made choices over years to stay in his orbit. It is all so odd.

So clearly it is right for him to sue her for defamation when she reports the facts of his affair with her as a student at the law school. Because these men need to be protected. And she deserved it, because the affair became consensual. And I guess she should never report it, and Wright would be teaching there still. Or there’s only a limited window in which her behavior allowed reporting it, and in any case the defamation claim was the price she pays. Again, she paid him.

Also enjoy the blame in her above for having her “married lover” get her employment. You know who helps employ law students? Teachers who students have worked for who then write them recommendations. That, and his powerful position as FTC commissioner and as lawyer to several huge companies like google and Amazon on work these students helped him perform, was how he roped these students in. Wright is the married guy with 3 kids who was supervising all 7 of these different women at different times, but yeah better blame the woman for sleeping with a married man.

This is why women don’t report.

This. What the people criticizing Dorsey don't seem to get us that she actually sacrificed her rep to come forward and talk about her experiences with Wright while in law school. She knew people would dig into her relationship with him after, that it would undermine her professional rep, and that Wright would likely release embarrassing texts/emails from her, which he did. But she came forward to support the case against Wright at GM, which helped get him fired, and expose him for what he is, which is a jerk who preys on female law students for sex while lording his power over their lives.

Dorsey could have stayed silent, and it would probably have been better for her professionally. She did the right thing and spoke up, told the TRUTH, and was rewarded with a huge defamation lawsuit (again, for simply telling the truth) and even now people like you are talking about the sordid details if her affair online and calling her a grifter.

You'd hope people would look at that and maybe a lightbulb would go off about how high dollar defamation lawsuits are being used to silence people who absolutely should come forward and tell the truth if their experience, but I'm sure instead you'll just spend 20 pages calling Dorsey names, accusing her of mental illness, digging into her other relationships (omg, is her husband gay for Hugh Jackman!?) etc.

No one is doing that. Someone commented on her ongoing relationship, which is fair.

I don’t know this story well, but Dorsey strikes me as a victim, albeit imperfect which is normal. The point is that BL is not. She wasn’t assaulted, or harassed, she wasn’t convinced to sleep with a man who had power over her. None of those things happened.

Which of course you know

This! The constant false equivalency is exactly why Blake needs to pay up. Justin is constantly being mentioned alongside actual predators and harassers. Blake has absolutely ruined him.

If Blake had a valid claim, she would’ve handled it more professionally. Take the current Kevin Costner situation, for instance. A stunt double is suing because she said policies weren’t followed during an intimate scene in a movie he was directing. She’s not smearing him personally. His name and brand aren’t inextricably linked to this situation. It’s more of a “there was malpractice on the set” versus he’s a “predator”. See the difference? And if true, this situation is worse than what happened to Blake.

If you have a real SH claim, you file a complaint and work through the proper channels. You don’t get your lawyers to write up a one sided non negotiable contract and then use it to bully the other party for infinity. You certainly don’t file a sham lawsuit to get someone’s personal text messages and smear them in the NYT. There’s so much malice here.

Blake’s a horrible person and it’s disgusting to watch her use the pain of real victims to advance her malicious agenda.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So above a Baldoni fan is torching Elyse Dorsey, and on LinkedIn people are sending her hateful invective via their comments. This is the treatment that Bryan Freedman and male feminist Justin Baldoni think is appropriate for survivors like Elyse Dorsey to receive.

I’ll say it again: You guys are the worst.

I’m not Baldoni or Freedman, or even male. Nor am I the person who posted the WSj article. No question Wright should have been fired by George Mason for having affairs with students. But Dorsey had a consensual relationship with him for years afterwards, and he got her several jobs, including hiring her to work for him at the FTC. That isn’t harassment, that’s a relationship, and honestly, gross on both sides. Who relies on their married lover to get them professional positions?

As a lawyer, I can’t relate to her story at all. She made choices over years to stay in his orbit. It is all so odd.

So clearly it is right for him to sue her for defamation when she reports the facts of his affair with her as a student at the law school. Because these men need to be protected. And she deserved it, because the affair became consensual. And I guess she should never report it, and Wright would be teaching there still. Or there’s only a limited window in which her behavior allowed reporting it, and in any case the defamation claim was the price she pays. Again, she paid him.

Also enjoy the blame in her above for having her “married lover” get her employment. You know who helps employ law students? Teachers who students have worked for who then write them recommendations. That, and his powerful position as FTC commissioner and as lawyer to several huge companies like google and Amazon on work these students helped him perform, was how he roped these students in. Wright is the married guy with 3 kids who was supervising all 7 of these different women at different times, but yeah better blame the woman for sleeping with a married man.

This is why women don’t report.

This. What the people criticizing Dorsey don't seem to get us that she actually sacrificed her rep to come forward and talk about her experiences with Wright while in law school. She knew people would dig into her relationship with him after, that it would undermine her professional rep, and that Wright would likely release embarrassing texts/emails from her, which he did. But she came forward to support the case against Wright at GM, which helped get him fired, and expose him for what he is, which is a jerk who preys on female law students for sex while lording his power over their lives.

Dorsey could have stayed silent, and it would probably have been better for her professionally. She did the right thing and spoke up, told the TRUTH, and was rewarded with a huge defamation lawsuit (again, for simply telling the truth) and even now people like you are talking about the sordid details if her affair online and calling her a grifter.

You'd hope people would look at that and maybe a lightbulb would go off about how high dollar defamation lawsuits are being used to silence people who absolutely should come forward and tell the truth if their experience, but I'm sure instead you'll just spend 20 pages calling Dorsey names, accusing her of mental illness, digging into her other relationships (omg, is her husband gay for Hugh Jackman!?) etc.

No one is doing that. Someone commented on her ongoing relationship, which is fair.

I don’t know this story well, but Dorsey strikes me as a victim, albeit imperfect which is normal. The point is that BL is not. She wasn’t assaulted, or harassed, she wasn’t convinced to sleep with a man who had power over her. None of those things happened.

Which of course you know

This! The constant false equivalency is exactly why Blake needs to pay up. Justin is constantly being mentioned alongside actual predators and harassers. Blake has absolutely ruined him.

If Blake had a valid claim, she would’ve handled it more professionally. Take the current Kevin Costner situation, for instance. A stunt double is suing because she said policies weren’t followed during an intimate scene in a movie he was directing. She’s not smearing him personally. His name and brand aren’t inextricably linked to this situation. It’s more of a “there was malpractice on the set” versus he’s a “predator”. See the difference? And if true, this situation is worse than what happened to Blake.

If you have a real SH claim, you file a complaint and work through the proper channels. You don’t get your lawyers to write up a one sided non negotiable contract and then use it to bully the other party for infinity. You certainly don’t file a sham lawsuit to get someone’s personal text messages and smear them in the NYT. There’s so much malice here.

Blake’s a horrible person and it’s disgusting to watch her use the pain of real victims to advance her malicious agenda.

Seems reasonable to file a lawsuit to me when you find out that under the radar and without your knowledge, he had hatched a plan to smear you, that was similar to smear campaigns launched against other women who had complained about sexual harassment. Actually.

Except when you don't actually have proof of an alleged campaign or pervasive sexual harassment.

[Anonymous]

And now male feminist Justin Baldoni is fighting to make provisions of a California law put in to protect victims of sexual harassment and abuse be declared unconstitutional.

He would like CA law protecting victims of SA/SH declared unconstitutional to protect himself: poor male feminist Justin Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So above a Baldoni fan is torching Elyse Dorsey, and on LinkedIn people are sending her hateful invective via their comments. This is the treatment that Bryan Freedman and male feminist Justin Baldoni think is appropriate for survivors like Elyse Dorsey to receive.

I’ll say it again: You guys are the worst.

I’m not Baldoni or Freedman, or even male. Nor am I the person who posted the WSj article. No question Wright should have been fired by George Mason for having affairs with students. But Dorsey had a consensual relationship with him for years afterwards, and he got her several jobs, including hiring her to work for him at the FTC. That isn’t harassment, that’s a relationship, and honestly, gross on both sides. Who relies on their married lover to get them professional positions?

As a lawyer, I can’t relate to her story at all. She made choices over years to stay in his orbit. It is all so odd.

So clearly it is right for him to sue her for defamation when she reports the facts of his affair with her as a student at the law school. Because these men need to be protected. And she deserved it, because the affair became consensual. And I guess she should never report it, and Wright would be teaching there still. Or there’s only a limited window in which her behavior allowed reporting it, and in any case the defamation claim was the price she pays. Again, she paid him.

Also enjoy the blame in her above for having her “married lover” get her employment. You know who helps employ law students? Teachers who students have worked for who then write them recommendations. That, and his powerful position as FTC commissioner and as lawyer to several huge companies like google and Amazon on work these students helped him perform, was how he roped these students in. Wright is the married guy with 3 kids who was supervising all 7 of these different women at different times, but yeah better blame the woman for sleeping with a married man.

This is why women don’t report.

This. What the people criticizing Dorsey don't seem to get us that she actually sacrificed her rep to come forward and talk about her experiences with Wright while in law school. She knew people would dig into her relationship with him after, that it would undermine her professional rep, and that Wright would likely release embarrassing texts/emails from her, which he did. But she came forward to support the case against Wright at GM, which helped get him fired, and expose him for what he is, which is a jerk who preys on female law students for sex while lording his power over their lives.

Dorsey could have stayed silent, and it would probably have been better for her professionally. She did the right thing and spoke up, told the TRUTH, and was rewarded with a huge defamation lawsuit (again, for simply telling the truth) and even now people like you are talking about the sordid details if her affair online and calling her a grifter.

You'd hope people would look at that and maybe a lightbulb would go off about how high dollar defamation lawsuits are being used to silence people who absolutely should come forward and tell the truth if their experience, but I'm sure instead you'll just spend 20 pages calling Dorsey names, accusing her of mental illness, digging into her other relationships (omg, is her husband gay for Hugh Jackman!?) etc.

Right. You guys don’t like Dorsey but had she not spoken up, Wright would likely still be teaching at George Mason, might still be a commissioner at the FTC, would stop be repping and advising corporate giants like Amazon and Google in their antitrust suits.

The point is that these big dollar defamation suits against women who sue or complain about sexual harassment are a new tool in the toolbox of harassers. Freedman knew this and employed it here. It’s both a punishment and a leverage and negotiating tool.

It is completely ridiculous that the guy who signed a contract promising not to retaliate against Lively is now suing her for defamation for 400 million dollars. That’s 8 times as much as Depp sued Heard for and that involved the Pirates franchise. Baldoni, the enlightened male feminist, filed his lawsuit as a retaliatory punishment and a threat. I can’t believe you guys don’t understand this.

Yes, we understand today’s talking points for you. We don’t agree with them.

And as I’ve mentioned, 400m is for all the wayfarer parties, not just justin, and I actually think they deserve every penny. Talk about a smear campaign. Blake’s side has led an ongoing charge to associate Baldoni with every repugnant rapist out there. Meanwhile his crimes were telling her her fake tan smelled good and someone looking at her while she was in her trailer.