Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still not a peep from Blake on Kevin Costner. I thought she wanted to be the voice for women?

Uh, the news came out today. Where's Baldoni? I thought his whole thing was holding me accountable for their treatment if women?

Justin’s never proclaimed himself to be the voice of victims of SH or SA. But Blake on the other hand just gave a long speech at the time 100 gala saying just that. Now another woman much less powerful than her comes out against an A lister and she’s quiet as a church mouse, just like she was with Harvey and Woody. I guess she stands up for “victims” only when she’s trying to steal a movie.

I’m not sure this is a sincere argument. But in case it is, I don’t think this victim would want the attention of Blake Lively taking her side right now. Do you? If Lively actually did this, wouldn’t you criticize her for performing support to draw attention to herself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See? This person is serious. It’s not a troll or someone posing etc.

Hi dc mom. Why are you so threatened by Candace Owen’s?

What’s with the ad hominem arguments?

I’m just saying that various Baldoni supporters really believe this awful stuff, like victims of SA/SH aren’t really victims if they later have a consensual relationship, or if they benefitted later, etc, or that Candace Owens is a good and reliable source of info. Or the ugly name calling and appearance bashing someone engages in when they get mad. This isn’t some troll pretending. This is just the level at which some Baldoni supporters are operating. Stop blaming us for it. You own it.

Huh? Having a consensual relationship with a predator for a decade doesn’t make rhe predator less a predator. I said in every one of my posts that he should have been fired. But it does take her individually out of the victim category when she voluntarily follows him from job to job. She only reported him because he broke up with her. Can only imagine what her colleagues at each stop thought of her knowing she was hired because she was sleeping with him.

Right. This stuff. You guys own *that*. Don’t look at posts like this later and blame us for them.

Baldoni supporters on Reddit are doing stuff that’s even worse tbh. So I’m not surprised by stuff I see here. Anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See? This person is serious. It’s not a troll or someone posing etc.

Hi dc mom. Why are you so threatened by Candace Owen’s?

What’s with the ad hominem arguments?

I’m just saying that various Baldoni supporters really believe this awful stuff, like victims of SA/SH aren’t really victims if they later have a consensual relationship, or if they benefitted later, etc, or that Candace Owens is a good and reliable source of info. Or the ugly name calling and appearance bashing someone engages in when they get mad. This isn’t some troll pretending. This is just the level at which some Baldoni supporters are operating. Stop blaming us for it. You own it.

Huh? Having a consensual relationship with a predator for a decade doesn’t make rhe predator less a predator. I said in every one of my posts that he should have been fired. But it does take her individually out of the victim category when she voluntarily follows him from job to job. She only reported him because he broke up with her. Can only imagine what her colleagues at each stop thought of her knowing she was hired because she was sleeping with him.

Right. This stuff. You guys own *that*. Don’t look at posts like this later and blame us for them.

Baldoni supporters on Reddit are doing stuff that’s even worse tbh. So I’m not surprised by stuff I see here. Anymore.

Wow. You are really a delicate flower. Poor you. Poor Blake. /s/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See? This person is serious. It’s not a troll or someone posing etc.

Hi dc mom. Why are you so threatened by Candace Owen’s?

What’s with the ad hominem arguments?

I’m just saying that various Baldoni supporters really believe this awful stuff, like victims of SA/SH aren’t really victims if they later have a consensual relationship, or if they benefitted later, etc, or that Candace Owens is a good and reliable source of info. Or the ugly name calling and appearance bashing someone engages in when they get mad. This isn’t some troll pretending. This is just the level at which some Baldoni supporters are operating. Stop blaming us for it. You own it.

Huh? Having a consensual relationship with a predator for a decade doesn’t make rhe predator less a predator. I said in every one of my posts that he should have been fired. But it does take her individually out of the victim category when she voluntarily follows him from job to job. She only reported him because he broke up with her. Can only imagine what her colleagues at each stop thought of her knowing she was hired because she was sleeping with him.

Right. This stuff. You guys own *that*. Don’t look at posts like this later and blame us for them.

Baldoni supporters on Reddit are doing stuff that’s even worse tbh. So I’m not surprised by stuff I see here. Anymore.

There is zero factually untrue in the paragraph you find so offensive. Unlikely most of what you post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See? This person is serious. It’s not a troll or someone posing etc.

Hi dc mom. Why are you so threatened by Candace Owen’s?

What’s with the ad hominem arguments?

I’m just saying that various Baldoni supporters really believe this awful stuff, like victims of SA/SH aren’t really victims if they later have a consensual relationship, or if they benefitted later, etc, or that Candace Owens is a good and reliable source of info. Or the ugly name calling and appearance bashing someone engages in when they get mad. This isn’t some troll pretending. This is just the level at which some Baldoni supporters are operating. Stop blaming us for it. You own it.

Huh? Having a consensual relationship with a predator for a decade doesn’t make rhe predator less a predator. I said in every one of my posts that he should have been fired. But it does take her individually out of the victim category when she voluntarily follows him from job to job. She only reported him because he broke up with her. Can only imagine what her colleagues at each stop thought of her knowing she was hired because she was sleeping with him.

Right. This stuff. You guys own *that*. Don’t look at posts like this later and blame us for them.

Baldoni supporters on Reddit are doing stuff that’s even worse tbh. So I’m not surprised by stuff I see here. Anymore.

Wow. You are really a delicate flower. Poor you. Poor Blake. /s/

Are you signing your posts lol?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See? This person is serious. It’s not a troll or someone posing etc.

Hi dc mom. Why are you so threatened by Candace Owen’s?

What’s with the ad hominem arguments?

I’m just saying that various Baldoni supporters really believe this awful stuff, like victims of SA/SH aren’t really victims if they later have a consensual relationship, or if they benefitted later, etc, or that Candace Owens is a good and reliable source of info. Or the ugly name calling and appearance bashing someone engages in when they get mad. This isn’t some troll pretending. This is just the level at which some Baldoni supporters are operating. Stop blaming us for it. You own it.

Huh? Having a consensual relationship with a predator for a decade doesn’t make rhe predator less a predator. I said in every one of my posts that he should have been fired. But it does take her individually out of the victim category when she voluntarily follows him from job to job. She only reported him because he broke up with her. Can only imagine what her colleagues at each stop thought of her knowing she was hired because she was sleeping with him.

Right. This stuff. You guys own *that*. Don’t look at posts like this later and blame us for them.

Baldoni supporters on Reddit are doing stuff that’s even worse tbh. So I’m not surprised by stuff I see here. Anymore.

Wow. You are really a delicate flower. Poor you. Poor Blake. /s/

Are you signing your posts lol?

No idea what this means, but are you aware that lol is an embarrassing and insecure tick to use in your posts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See? This person is serious. It’s not a troll or someone posing etc.

Hi dc mom. Why are you so threatened by Candace Owen’s?

What’s with the ad hominem arguments?

I’m just saying that various Baldoni supporters really believe this awful stuff, like victims of SA/SH aren’t really victims if they later have a consensual relationship, or if they benefitted later, etc, or that Candace Owens is a good and reliable source of info. Or the ugly name calling and appearance bashing someone engages in when they get mad. This isn’t some troll pretending. This is just the level at which some Baldoni supporters are operating. Stop blaming us for it. You own it.

Huh? Having a consensual relationship with a predator for a decade doesn’t make rhe predator less a predator. I said in every one of my posts that he should have been fired. But it does take her individually out of the victim category when she voluntarily follows him from job to job. She only reported him because he broke up with her. Can only imagine what her colleagues at each stop thought of her knowing she was hired because she was sleeping with him.

Right. This stuff. You guys own *that*. Don’t look at posts like this later and blame us for them.

Baldoni supporters on Reddit are doing stuff that’s even worse tbh. So I’m not surprised by stuff I see here. Anymore.

Wow. You are really a delicate flower. Poor you. Poor Blake. /s/

Are you signing your posts lol?

The /s/ means sarcasm fwiw. DP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elyse Dorsey isn't an "imperfect victim." She's not a victim at all. That relationship was consensual.

Especially when she was a student and Wright was her professor — that was totally great. And the subsequent 6 students he tried it on with.

Honestly, it’s depressing to hear you guys do this and make these arguments. Do you know you’re just proving my point? Maybe you should add some negative comments about her appearance, too, just to get it out of your system?

No question he was a predator who should have been fired. But fully three of the students, including Dorsey, had consensual relationships with him after they graduated that lasted 5 to 10 years each. He got two jobs at Wilson Sonsini and I believe two followed him to the FTC. Wright is a total scum bag, who did all kinds of inappropriate things as a FTC commissioner (basically influence peddling) and he was married throughout. And yet these former students actively competed among themselves for his attention. It would make one hell of a movie, but it certainly isn’t a textbook case of harassment.

Yeah, that was exactly his defense. "I slept with all of these students but I rewarded them all with jobz! So I did nothing wrong, and look at how they're defaming me now!"

I mean, I don't want my law school to work that way, and I am glad that the women reported this man and got him to resign, and that he lost most of the positions of power he had been privileged to hold. Am I going to blame the women because they got involved in relationships with him when they were his students and those relationships went on to last a while? Again, I don't need women who report SH to be perfect victims because I recognize that most perfect victims don't report at all. Why would they, when they could just move on? But feel free to attack these women since that seems to be where you are headed.

If we’re being honest, they should’ve reported him when he propositioned them instead of taking him up on the offer. These sorts of cases are murky, but I agree with Candace Owens when she asks where do you draw the line between sugar baby and victim?

Who is actually quoting Candace Owens in this thread anymore? Are you for real?

And we will continue quoting her. Owens is intimately involved as several witnesses and parties have directly and indirectly contacted her and leaked information pivotal to the case while having their identities and careers protected.

That's not true -- she trolls reddit for theories and info and then "reports" it on her channel and claims people leaked it to her directly. She's done this several times. She knows nothing about this case and is just using your interest in the case to get you to view her channel and make money.

Also: she is a Holocaust denier, has theorized that Jews control the weather, accused school shooting survivors of being actors, supports Trump, etc. She's terrible and you should not give her views and likes because it just encourages her terribleness.

No, she doesn't. She's directly in contact with multiple members of production and has first hand accounts. Your accusations are baseless and conjecture. We'll continue quoting Owens along with the other parties such as Flaa and Hilton who witnesses have also provided information privately and publicly.

And your just going to ignore her history of antisemitism and conspiracy mongering?

I'm guessing you are someone who thinks Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds are evil, and who points to past examples of them being controlling, lying, or otherwise behaving badly as proof the are in the wrong here, yes?

But you are getting info on this conflict by someone who is known to spread lies and misinformation, and is known to engage in hateful stereotypes. Why aren't Candace Owens' past actions enough to make you distrust her here?

I agree with you fwiw, but I think they just don’t want to see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still not a peep from Blake on Kevin Costner. I thought she wanted to be the voice for women?

Uh, the news came out today. Where's Baldoni? I thought his whole thing was holding me accountable for their treatment if women?

Justin’s never proclaimed himself to be the voice of victims of SH or SA. But Blake on the other hand just gave a long speech at the time 100 gala saying just that. Now another woman much less powerful than her comes out against an A lister and she’s quiet as a church mouse, just like she was with Harvey and Woody. I guess she stands up for “victims” only when she’s trying to steal a movie.

I’m not sure this is a sincere argument. But in case it is, I don’t think this victim would want the attention of Blake Lively taking her side right now. Do you? If Lively actually did this, wouldn’t you criticize her for performing support to draw attention to herself?

Neutral DP. I think you're probably right that Baldoni fans would criticize her either way, but it's also fair to question why she takes up the mantle of supporting all women and then doesn't comment when the accused is a big Hollywood name. That would be sort of gross. It's a pretty similar situation regarding the lack of IC and unscripted intimate scenes being added, so reasonable to think Lively would support. OTOH I'd hate to see the Baldoni fans flood comment threats with hate for this woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See? This person is serious. It’s not a troll or someone posing etc.

Hi dc mom. Why are you so threatened by Candace Owen’s?

What’s with the ad hominem arguments?

I’m just saying that various Baldoni supporters really believe this awful stuff, like victims of SA/SH aren’t really victims if they later have a consensual relationship, or if they benefitted later, etc, or that Candace Owens is a good and reliable source of info. Or the ugly name calling and appearance bashing someone engages in when they get mad. This isn’t some troll pretending. This is just the level at which some Baldoni supporters are operating. Stop blaming us for it. You own it.

Huh? Having a consensual relationship with a predator for a decade doesn’t make rhe predator less a predator. I said in every one of my posts that he should have been fired. But it does take her individually out of the victim category when she voluntarily follows him from job to job. She only reported him because he broke up with her. Can only imagine what her colleagues at each stop thought of her knowing she was hired because she was sleeping with him.

Right. This stuff. You guys own *that*. Don’t look at posts like this later and blame us for them.

Baldoni supporters on Reddit are doing stuff that’s even worse tbh. So I’m not surprised by stuff I see here. Anymore.

Wow. You are really a delicate flower. Poor you. Poor Blake. /s/

Are you signing your posts lol?

The /s/ means sarcasm fwiw. DP.

No, that’s /s actually.

The double slash generally indicates a signature, as I said.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_indicator

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See? This person is serious. It’s not a troll or someone posing etc.

Hi dc mom. Why are you so threatened by Candace Owen’s?

What’s with the ad hominem arguments?

I’m just saying that various Baldoni supporters really believe this awful stuff, like victims of SA/SH aren’t really victims if they later have a consensual relationship, or if they benefitted later, etc, or that Candace Owens is a good and reliable source of info. Or the ugly name calling and appearance bashing someone engages in when they get mad. This isn’t some troll pretending. This is just the level at which some Baldoni supporters are operating. Stop blaming us for it. You own it.

Huh? Having a consensual relationship with a predator for a decade doesn’t make rhe predator less a predator. I said in every one of my posts that he should have been fired. But it does take her individually out of the victim category when she voluntarily follows him from job to job. She only reported him because he broke up with her. Can only imagine what her colleagues at each stop thought of her knowing she was hired because she was sleeping with him.

Right. This stuff. You guys own *that*. Don’t look at posts like this later and blame us for them.

Baldoni supporters on Reddit are doing stuff that’s even worse tbh. So I’m not surprised by stuff I see here. Anymore.

Wow. You are really a delicate flower. Poor you. Poor Blake. /s/

Are you signing your posts lol?

The /s/ means sarcasm fwiw. DP.

No, that’s /s actually.

The double slash generally indicates a signature, as I said.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_indicator

Context clues...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See? This person is serious. It’s not a troll or someone posing etc.

Hi dc mom. Why are you so threatened by Candace Owen’s?

What’s with the ad hominem arguments?

I’m just saying that various Baldoni supporters really believe this awful stuff, like victims of SA/SH aren’t really victims if they later have a consensual relationship, or if they benefitted later, etc, or that Candace Owens is a good and reliable source of info. Or the ugly name calling and appearance bashing someone engages in when they get mad. This isn’t some troll pretending. This is just the level at which some Baldoni supporters are operating. Stop blaming us for it. You own it.

Huh? Having a consensual relationship with a predator for a decade doesn’t make rhe predator less a predator. I said in every one of my posts that he should have been fired. But it does take her individually out of the victim category when she voluntarily follows him from job to job. She only reported him because he broke up with her. Can only imagine what her colleagues at each stop thought of her knowing she was hired because she was sleeping with him.

Right. This stuff. You guys own *that*. Don’t look at posts like this later and blame us for them.

Baldoni supporters on Reddit are doing stuff that’s even worse tbh. So I’m not surprised by stuff I see here. Anymore.

Wow. You are really a delicate flower. Poor you. Poor Blake. /s/

Are you signing your posts lol?

The /s/ means sarcasm fwiw. DP.

No, that’s /s actually.

The double slash generally indicates a signature, as I said.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_indicator

Context clues...

I just thought it was funny that they couldn’t figure out how to insult me properly. lol lol lol lol lol lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still not a peep from Blake on Kevin Costner. I thought she wanted to be the voice for women?

Uh, the news came out today. Where's Baldoni? I thought his whole thing was holding me accountable for their treatment if women?

Justin’s never proclaimed himself to be the voice of victims of SH or SA. But Blake on the other hand just gave a long speech at the time 100 gala saying just that. Now another woman much less powerful than her comes out against an A lister and she’s quiet as a church mouse, just like she was with Harvey and Woody. I guess she stands up for “victims” only when she’s trying to steal a movie.

I’m not sure this is a sincere argument. But in case it is, I don’t think this victim would want the attention of Blake Lively taking her side right now. Do you? If Lively actually did this, wouldn’t you criticize her for performing support to draw attention to herself?

Neutral DP. I think you're probably right that Baldoni fans would criticize her either way, but it's also fair to question why she takes up the mantle of supporting all women and then doesn't comment when the accused is a big Hollywood name. That would be sort of gross. It's a pretty similar situation regarding the lack of IC and unscripted intimate scenes being added, so reasonable to think Lively would support. OTOH I'd hate to see the Baldoni fans flood comment threats with hate for this woman.

DP but I think it's absurd to expect Blake or her legal team to publicly comment on this woman's lawsuit the day the news breaks, and I do think that would be performative and attention seeking if she did it.

The fact patterns are so similar that I think it's highly likely the stunt woman's lawsuit was at least in part inspired by Lively's. The questions of whether it is sexual harassment to push an actress (or stunt woman) to do unscripted nudity or intimacy haven't really been litigated before, and the question of when it is necessary for an intimacy coordinator to be on set and what their job is has also not really been legally explored. Until Lively's lawsuit. So to me there is no way that, at a minimum, the stunt woman's lawyers have not read Lively's complaint and explored the case law and the arguments she is leaning on in her case.

In that way, Lively's lawsuit *is* functioning as a form of support for the stunt woman, whether they ever touch base publicly or privately (and I expect they likely will because they are alleging such similar things). This is actually one of the main arguments in favor of someone like Lively, who is powerful and wealthy and has a lot of industry support, coming forward and calling out this behavior -- it can make it easier for people like this stunt woman, who have none of those resources, to come forward as well. So even if Lively never publicly says she supports this lawsuit, she has shown through her actions that she believes women on movie sets deserve better than what this stunt woman experienced on set. That is actually more meaningful than a public statement, IMO.

People can criticize Blake all they want but what if her lawsuit leads to more actresses on films sets speaking up when they are asked to do nudity that wasn't in the script, when the director or a scene partner pushes a form of intimacy that feels uncomfortable or bad to them without discussing it first or involving an IC? What if Blake's lawsuit leads to the industry adopting stricter industry standards for the filming of nudity and intimacy, and to a better understanding that "intimacy" can involve any scene where an actor's body is put in an intimate or compromised position (such as simulating childbirth or medical procedures)? I think all of that would be a net positive for Hollywood and for women in Hollywood. I think a lot of actresses, regardless of how they feel about Blake personally or how they view this particular case, would be happy to see those changes. And that's not even getting into the the retaliation aspects of her lawsuit, which I think are of particular interest to celebrity women at all levels who know how easy it is to harm their livelihoods and their personal lives by plugging into the online misogyny generator and focusing it on a famous woman.

This is what it means when we say "women helping women." This is why I think her lawsuit is important and fully support her in bringing these allegations and pursuing legal remedies. This could change things for women for the better in a way that hashtags and online info campaigns can't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still not a peep from Blake on Kevin Costner. I thought she wanted to be the voice for women?

Uh, the news came out today. Where's Baldoni? I thought his whole thing was holding me accountable for their treatment if women?

Justin’s never proclaimed himself to be the voice of victims of SH or SA. But Blake on the other hand just gave a long speech at the time 100 gala saying just that. Now another woman much less powerful than her comes out against an A lister and she’s quiet as a church mouse, just like she was with Harvey and Woody. I guess she stands up for “victims” only when she’s trying to steal a movie.

I’m not sure this is a sincere argument. But in case it is, I don’t think this victim would want the attention of Blake Lively taking her side right now. Do you? If Lively actually did this, wouldn’t you criticize her for performing support to draw attention to herself?

Neutral DP. I think you're probably right that Baldoni fans would criticize her either way, but it's also fair to question why she takes up the mantle of supporting all women and then doesn't comment when the accused is a big Hollywood name. That would be sort of gross. It's a pretty similar situation regarding the lack of IC and unscripted intimate scenes being added, so reasonable to think Lively would support. OTOH I'd hate to see the Baldoni fans flood comment threats with hate for this woman.

DP but I think it's absurd to expect Blake or her legal team to publicly comment on this woman's lawsuit the day the news breaks, and I do think that would be performative and attention seeking if she did it.

The fact patterns are so similar that I think it's highly likely the stunt woman's lawsuit was at least in part inspired by Lively's. The questions of whether it is sexual harassment to push an actress (or stunt woman) to do unscripted nudity or intimacy haven't really been litigated before, and the question of when it is necessary for an intimacy coordinator to be on set and what their job is has also not really been legally explored. Until Lively's lawsuit. So to me there is no way that, at a minimum, the stunt woman's lawyers have not read Lively's complaint and explored the case law and the arguments she is leaning on in her case.

In that way, Lively's lawsuit *is* functioning as a form of support for the stunt woman, whether they ever touch base publicly or privately (and I expect they likely will because they are alleging such similar things). This is actually one of the main arguments in favor of someone like Lively, who is powerful and wealthy and has a lot of industry support, coming forward and calling out this behavior -- it can make it easier for people like this stunt woman, who have none of those resources, to come forward as well. So even if Lively never publicly says she supports this lawsuit, she has shown through her actions that she believes women on movie sets deserve better than what this stunt woman experienced on set. That is actually more meaningful than a public statement, IMO.

People can criticize Blake all they want but what if her lawsuit leads to more actresses on films sets speaking up when they are asked to do nudity that wasn't in the script, when the director or a scene partner pushes a form of intimacy that feels uncomfortable or bad to them without discussing it first or involving an IC? What if Blake's lawsuit leads to the industry adopting stricter industry standards for the filming of nudity and intimacy, and to a better understanding that "intimacy" can involve any scene where an actor's body is put in an intimate or compromised position (such as simulating childbirth or medical procedures)? I think all of that would be a net positive for Hollywood and for women in Hollywood. I think a lot of actresses, regardless of how they feel about Blake personally or how they view this particular case, would be happy to see those changes. And that's not even getting into the the retaliation aspects of her lawsuit, which I think are of particular interest to celebrity women at all levels who know how easy it is to harm their livelihoods and their personal lives by plugging into the online misogyny generator and focusing it on a famous woman.

This is what it means when we say "women helping women." This is why I think her lawsuit is important and fully support her in bringing these allegations and pursuing legal remedies. This could change things for women for the better in a way that hashtags and online info campaigns can't.

These are great point! I agree with you. Specifically, even if Lively doesn’t make some public statement of support right now which might unintentionally encourage Baldoni supporters to attack this victim also, Lively’s suit itself may already have helped in a way by bringing public attention to these nudity and intimacy issues.

I don’t really know if Lively should publicly support this victim and/or whether the victim would even want it. And I look at the terrible online beating that Dorsey is getting right now, and just have a lot of respect for former victims like her and Amber Heard who have come out in support of Lively despite the cost to them online. Nerves of steel, these women.

[Anonymous]

pointS, sorry