Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“We can bury anyone”. Same PR firm that repped Depp. Discovery is in progress. Freedman didn’t even try to dismiss.

[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.

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.

How did she even smear Sarowitz and the PR twits? I don't believe they said anything about Nathan and Abel other than quoting their own texts or anything about Sarowitz at all.

[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.

I don’t think that’s accurate. There was another victim who spoke up first. Dorsey was second and only after she learned that wright was involved with a romantic rival.

Again, Wright should have been fired for sexually harassing law students. But I don’t think the relationship he had with Dorsey was sexual harassment after she graduated. She had many off ramps and instead chose to use her sexual relationship with him for career gain while the rest of us relied upon our law school grades, journals, and interview skills. Her story is really yet another demonstration that there is often a lot of gray in these cases.

[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.

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.

I don’t think that’s accurate. There was another victim who spoke up first. Dorsey was second and only after she learned that wright was involved with a romantic rival.

Again, Wright should have been fired for sexually harassing law students. But I don’t think the relationship he had with Dorsey was sexual harassment after she graduated. She had many off ramps and instead chose to use her sexual relationship with him for career gain while the rest of us relied upon our law school grades, journals, and interview skills. Her story is really yet another demonstration that there is often a lot of gray in these cases.

Dp. Look, abusive people have always been able to use the legal system to harass people. This is not a new ‘tool’ for harassers. Look at our president. Look at tons of people who use the courts. You might even consider Gottlieb and his flood of motions and activity in these cases. And of course look at Blake herself and how she avoided proper channels to file a harassment claim and instead took her one sided story to the NYT and used a Ca filing as cover.

I need to look at this CA law and how it’s written to judge fully, but as I mentioned above, I suspect this is a well meaning but overbroad and ultimately harmful law as written. There are already methods that judges have to shut down frivolous litigation but IME they are too rarely used.

[Anonymous]

^ btw im the lawyer who has worked around gender issues (although I’m not a deep expert). One of the orgs that gave a quote, SFF, frankly should know better. There are a number of laws and policies that have been promoted in this space that are well meaning but ultimately too broad, vague, poorly written etc and even harmful to the people they are supposed to protect

[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.

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.

I don’t think that’s accurate. There was another victim who spoke up first. Dorsey was second and only after she learned that wright was involved with a romantic rival.

Again, Wright should have been fired for sexually harassing law students. But I don’t think the relationship he had with Dorsey was sexual harassment after she graduated. She had many off ramps and instead chose to use her sexual relationship with him for career gain while the rest of us relied upon our law school grades, journals, and interview skills. Her story is really yet another demonstration that there is often a lot of gray in these cases.

Dp. Look, abusive people have always been able to use the legal system to harass people. This is not a new ‘tool’ for harassers. Look at our president. Look at tons of people who use the courts. You might even consider Gottlieb and his flood of motions and activity in these cases. And of course look at Blake herself and how she avoided proper channels to file a harassment claim and instead took her one sided story to the NYT and used a Ca filing as cover.

I need to look at this CA law and how it’s written to judge fully, but as I mentioned above, I suspect this is a well meaning but overbroad and ultimately harmful law as written. There are already methods that judges have to shut down frivolous litigation but IME they are too rarely used.

“Feminist lawyer” argues CA law protecting victims of SA/SH retaliatory defamation lawsuits may be unconstitutional; should allow greater protections for male feminists/harassers/retaliators like Justin Baldoni.

[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

Do you have a gut feeling on how this will shake out?

There are other avenues for Liman to dismiss the defamation claims as to Lively, if he's so inclined. As far as I can recall, almost all of the defamatory comments from Lively are sourced from the CRD, so they could be covered by the litigation privilege. He could accept Lively's argument that since she has a litigation privilege and NYT has Fair Report, her communications with the NY Times should also be covered as the go-between. And I don't think they referenced any comments she made otherwise, although they might dig up some texts in discovery.

Alternatively, if he does not want to dismiss the defamation claims, he could say that Baldoni has pled enough facts to allege that her complaint was made "with malice," and therefore does not fit within the California law. This seems to be the safest bet if he doesn't want to dip his toes into constitutionality or the merits of the law. It would support the idea that the law has provisions to protect falsely accused persons.

Will be fun to see if whoever loses that particular battle appeals and how that goes.

Op. I think he will focus on malice and avoid the constitutional issue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

They’re in invested in upholding 47.1. Justin is just collateral damage to them. I suspect as much about most of Blake’s supporters. The best thing Blake can do for 47.1 is settle because she is the poster child for how this law can be abused. It’s a shame that the first test of this law relies on such an unworthy plaintiff. She’s really setting women back.

Completely agree. I don’t think the people filing amicus know who they’ve attached themselves to

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I don’t think that’s accurate. There was another victim who spoke up first. Dorsey was second and only after she learned that wright was involved with a romantic rival.

Again, Wright should have been fired for sexually harassing law students. But I don’t think the relationship he had with Dorsey was sexual harassment after she graduated. She had many off ramps and instead chose to use her sexual relationship with him for career gain while the rest of us relied upon our law school grades, journals, and interview skills. Her story is really yet another demonstration that there is often a lot of gray in these cases.

Dp. Look, abusive people have always been able to use the legal system to harass people. This is not a new ‘tool’ for harassers. Look at our president. Look at tons of people who use the courts. You might even consider Gottlieb and his flood of motions and activity in these cases. And of course look at Blake herself and how she avoided proper channels to file a harassment claim and instead took her one sided story to the NYT and used a Ca filing as cover.

I need to look at this CA law and how it’s written to judge fully, but as I mentioned above, I suspect this is a well meaning but overbroad and ultimately harmful law as written. There are already methods that judges have to shut down frivolous litigation but IME they are too rarely used.

“Feminist lawyer” argues CA law protecting victims of SA/SH retaliatory defamation lawsuits may be unconstitutional; should allow greater protections for male feminists/harassers/retaliators like Justin Baldoni.

Pp. Sorry, where did I say that? You are great at twisting and lying. I am a ‘feminist’ and a lawyer and I am perfectly aware of poorly written but well meaning laws. Is this one of them? Idk. But I do know BL is not a victim here.

[Anonymous]

^ and I’ll add that defamation law is the perfect tool for what happened here. Don’t file sham lawsuits and coordinate hit pieces against people in the NYT if you don’t want the heat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I don’t think that’s accurate. There was another victim who spoke up first. Dorsey was second and only after she learned that wright was involved with a romantic rival.

Again, Wright should have been fired for sexually harassing law students. But I don’t think the relationship he had with Dorsey was sexual harassment after she graduated. She had many off ramps and instead chose to use her sexual relationship with him for career gain while the rest of us relied upon our law school grades, journals, and interview skills. Her story is really yet another demonstration that there is often a lot of gray in these cases.

Dp. Look, abusive people have always been able to use the legal system to harass people. This is not a new ‘tool’ for harassers. Look at our president. Look at tons of people who use the courts. You might even consider Gottlieb and his flood of motions and activity in these cases. And of course look at Blake herself and how she avoided proper channels to file a harassment claim and instead took her one sided story to the NYT and used a Ca filing as cover.

I need to look at this CA law and how it’s written to judge fully, but as I mentioned above, I suspect this is a well meaning but overbroad and ultimately harmful law as written. There are already methods that judges have to shut down frivolous litigation but IME they are too rarely used.

“Feminist lawyer” argues CA law protecting victims of SA/SH retaliatory defamation lawsuits may be unconstitutional; should allow greater protections for male feminists/harassers/retaliators like Justin Baldoni.

Pp. Sorry, where did I say that? You are great at twisting and lying. I am a ‘feminist’ and a lawyer and I am perfectly aware of poorly written but well meaning laws. Is this one of them? Idk. But I do know BL is not a victim here.

Isn’t that where you were going, though? You said you needed to look more carefully at the law, but that “I suspect this is a well meaning but overbroad and ultimately harmful law as written.” In other words, you suspected the law was overbroad and therefore potentially unconstitutional, no? And wouldn’t the over breadth be due to the provisions relating to defamation claims? If I’m wrong, please let me know how.

I guess what I did was write a sentence that laid out where your analysis seemed to be going before you got there. But I did say “may be” unconstitutional, so it seemed relatively fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

They’re in invested in upholding 47.1. Justin is just collateral damage to them. I suspect as much about most of Blake’s supporters. The best thing Blake can do for 47.1 is settle because she is the poster child for how this law can be abused. It’s a shame that the first test of this law relies on such an unworthy plaintiff. She’s really setting women back.

Completely agree. I don’t think the people filing amicus know who they’ve attached themselves to

But this is the law they wanted, to protect people who make these claims. It's probably good that this case is complicated and immediately raises the crux of the issue which is how do you know if this was a legitimate case deserving the protection of the law, or a malicious hit job that deserves to be liable for defamation. And it would also be helpful to set some standards around the meaning of malice here, whether it means the dictionary definition of malice, or is using the actual malice standard typically reserved for public figures.

[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.

+1.

+2. I have no opinion of Dorsey but I’ll never back Lively and her false allegations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ and I’ll add that defamation law is the perfect tool for what happened here. Don’t file sham lawsuits and coordinate hit pieces against people in the NYT if you don’t want the heat.

Yes, I agree. $400M defamation lawsuit is “the perfect tool” for men like Justin Baldoni who were sued for harassment and retaliation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ and I’ll add that defamation law is the perfect tool for what happened here. Don’t file sham lawsuits and coordinate hit pieces against people in the NYT if you don’t want the heat.

Yes, I agree. $400M defamation lawsuit is “the perfect tool” for men like Justin Baldoni who were sued for harassment and retaliation.

Sorry, you forgot for the “falsely” to go with “sued.”

Amicus briefs are suppose to be filed alongside the motions they relate to. Why are the ones here being filed so late?