Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that in the Vituscka response to document requests, Vituscka outright denies the existence of certain communications, like the existence of any outright agreements to publish materials to harm Lively or Sloane. But when it comes to other requests, like seeding online content ("efforts to seed, influence, manipulate, boost, amplify, or engage with social media
algorithms, narrative or virality, as well as the use of bots or inauthentic accounts"), Vituscka just says they won't produce docs in response to that request due to the reporters privilege or whatever. Similar response to docs responsive to efforts to harm Lively or Sloane or their public image. That's a bit of a tell.

Yes, maybe. Although there’s no world the DM is not going to assert reporters privilege.

[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?

Because your accusations are out of context and others are outright false. You're trying to assert yourself as an authority when you're just a spectator and have a variety of qualifiers you've made up to determine whose credible when the fact of the matter is everyone involved in this case has some sort of questionable past. Blake has done blackface and married on a plantation and had strong association to Weinstein. Ryan's set killed a stunt woman and he's had numerous affairs with coworkers. Baldoni's set had racist incidents. If we went by this, nobody would be able to speak on anything. Owens is intimately involved and relevant by being a figure witnesses from the set provided inside information. It would be the exact same if they were going to say, Rachel Maddow, who once said Obama was out of his "cotton pickin mind".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. I don't agree with you and here's why. It's been my belief that the law doesn't concave to benign actions. What I mean by this is that there is a range of what can be included as harrassment. Is it a glance (very benign and perhaps unprovable) or is it constant contact at all hours of the day/night suggesting sexual behaviors and engagements (not benign and a high level of discomfort + provable)? I want to believe from everything I know about the law, that the courts use a reasonableness standard and asks of juries to do so as well. And I tend to believe that juries get it right in a lot of cases -- they tend to pass on the benign and unprovable, but support strong legal action for intentional, abusive and/or egregious behavior. Again, not always, but in many cases.

I think that in applying this rational to the Baldoni case and the new Costner stunt woman case, I think you have two opposite ranges of accused behavior. There is the "he looked at me the wrong way/made me feel uncomfortable and I think it could be SH" Blake behavior versus the "he raped me in a scene" without an IC behavior. Juries will see the difference and imo will only support strong legal action for the behavior that is most egregious to set that behavior as a bar.

In wanting to punish someone harshly for lukewarm/non-existent behavior, you are setting a really bad bar that will be ripe for overturning because it simply is not reasonable. And if there is anything that I know about American law, is that it always finds its way back to the reasonableness standard.

That's the way I see it with court cases, and that's why I assert that Baldoni would win if the case is given to a jury. No reasonable person would argue that the standards that the law has set for SH is being met with Blake's accusations. Nowhere even close.

Plus, if the law were to concede that what Blake is accusing amounts to SH, the bar will be lowered to even lesser actions as constituting SH. E.g., if a guy even has the thought of looking Blake's way without an IC present, it would be considered SH. The courts don't intend that to be the case at all. Hence my views on Baldoni having the stronger case. There is just not a lot of evidence that Blake has shown to support any decent notion of SH.

And yes, I can see how the lawyers for this new case (and probably even more that are waiting to see the outcome of Baldoni) are hoping that Blake's case provides the opening needed for their cases to succeed. At the same time, having two cases at opposite ends of the spectrum on SH/SA is not a good thing for Blake, especially given that hers is the one alleging the weakest action.

If we are playing match the posts, I think this is the same person who thought Lively defenders were tracking her location somehow via her comments, fwiw.

Nah, that was you/your partners. You are obsessed with it and bring it up again and again. It’s part of your messaging toolkit ‘make Baldoni posters look bad/crazy/misogynistic etc. All part of the plan

That wasn’t even you lol. The actual person who posted it didn’t deny it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. I don't agree with you and here's why. It's been my belief that the law doesn't concave to benign actions. What I mean by this is that there is a range of what can be included as harrassment. Is it a glance (very benign and perhaps unprovable) or is it constant contact at all hours of the day/night suggesting sexual behaviors and engagements (not benign and a high level of discomfort + provable)? I want to believe from everything I know about the law, that the courts use a reasonableness standard and asks of juries to do so as well. And I tend to believe that juries get it right in a lot of cases -- they tend to pass on the benign and unprovable, but support strong legal action for intentional, abusive and/or egregious behavior. Again, not always, but in many cases.

I think that in applying this rational to the Baldoni case and the new Costner stunt woman case, I think you have two opposite ranges of accused behavior. There is the "he looked at me the wrong way/made me feel uncomfortable and I think it could be SH" Blake behavior versus the "he raped me in a scene" without an IC behavior. Juries will see the difference and imo will only support strong legal action for the behavior that is most egregious to set that behavior as a bar.

In wanting to punish someone harshly for lukewarm/non-existent behavior, you are setting a really bad bar that will be ripe for overturning because it simply is not reasonable. And if there is anything that I know about American law, is that it always finds its way back to the reasonableness standard.

That's the way I see it with court cases, and that's why I assert that Baldoni would win if the case is given to a jury. No reasonable person would argue that the standards that the law has set for SH is being met with Blake's accusations. Nowhere even close.

Plus, if the law were to concede that what Blake is accusing amounts to SH, the bar will be lowered to even lesser actions as constituting SH. E.g., if a guy even has the thought of looking Blake's way without an IC present, it would be considered SH. The courts don't intend that to be the case at all. Hence my views on Baldoni having the stronger case. There is just not a lot of evidence that Blake has shown to support any decent notion of SH.

And yes, I can see how the lawyers for this new case (and probably even more that are waiting to see the outcome of Baldoni) are hoping that Blake's case provides the opening needed for their cases to succeed. At the same time, having two cases at opposite ends of the spectrum on SH/SA is not a good thing for Blake, especially given that hers is the one alleging the weakest action.

If we are playing match the posts, I think this is the same person who thought Lively defenders were tracking her location somehow via her comments, fwiw.

Nah, that was you/your partners. You are obsessed with it and bring it up again and again. It’s part of your messaging toolkit ‘make Baldoni posters look bad/crazy/misogynistic etc. All part of the plan

That wasn’t even you lol. The actual person who posted it didn’t deny it.

No idea what you even mean lol lol lol lol

But just because someone didn’t bother to deny it, doesn’t mean that it wasn’t you. Of course you didn’t deny it. It’s part of your lame campaign

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. I don't agree with you and here's why. It's been my belief that the law doesn't concave to benign actions. What I mean by this is that there is a range of what can be included as harrassment. Is it a glance (very benign and perhaps unprovable) or is it constant contact at all hours of the day/night suggesting sexual behaviors and engagements (not benign and a high level of discomfort + provable)? I want to believe from everything I know about the law, that the courts use a reasonableness standard and asks of juries to do so as well. And I tend to believe that juries get it right in a lot of cases -- they tend to pass on the benign and unprovable, but support strong legal action for intentional, abusive and/or egregious behavior. Again, not always, but in many cases.

I think that in applying this rational to the Baldoni case and the new Costner stunt woman case, I think you have two opposite ranges of accused behavior. There is the "he looked at me the wrong way/made me feel uncomfortable and I think it could be SH" Blake behavior versus the "he raped me in a scene" without an IC behavior. Juries will see the difference and imo will only support strong legal action for the behavior that is most egregious to set that behavior as a bar.

In wanting to punish someone harshly for lukewarm/non-existent behavior, you are setting a really bad bar that will be ripe for overturning because it simply is not reasonable. And if there is anything that I know about American law, is that it always finds its way back to the reasonableness standard.

That's the way I see it with court cases, and that's why I assert that Baldoni would win if the case is given to a jury. No reasonable person would argue that the standards that the law has set for SH is being met with Blake's accusations. Nowhere even close.

Plus, if the law were to concede that what Blake is accusing amounts to SH, the bar will be lowered to even lesser actions as constituting SH. E.g., if a guy even has the thought of looking Blake's way without an IC present, it would be considered SH. The courts don't intend that to be the case at all. Hence my views on Baldoni having the stronger case. There is just not a lot of evidence that Blake has shown to support any decent notion of SH.

And yes, I can see how the lawyers for this new case (and probably even more that are waiting to see the outcome of Baldoni) are hoping that Blake's case provides the opening needed for their cases to succeed. At the same time, having two cases at opposite ends of the spectrum on SH/SA is not a good thing for Blake, especially given that hers is the one alleging the weakest action.

1+. Very astute analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because your accusations are out of context and others are outright false. You're trying to assert yourself as an authority when you're just a spectator and have a variety of qualifiers you've made up to determine whose credible when the fact of the matter is everyone involved in this case has some sort of questionable past. Blake has done blackface and married on a plantation and had strong association to Weinstein. Ryan's set killed a stunt woman and he's had numerous affairs with coworkers. Baldoni's set had racist incidents. If we went by this, nobody would be able to speak on anything. Owens is intimately involved and relevant by being a figure witnesses from the set provided inside information. It would be the exact same if they were going to say, Rachel Maddow, who once said Obama was out of his "cotton pickin mind".

DP. Thank you and I agree. It’s part of their incessant ad hominem attacks. Their efforts really are becoming so predictable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. I don't agree with you and here's why. It's been my belief that the law doesn't concave to benign actions. What I mean by this is that there is a range of what can be included as harrassment. Is it a glance (very benign and perhaps unprovable) or is it constant contact at all hours of the day/night suggesting sexual behaviors and engagements (not benign and a high level of discomfort + provable)? I want to believe from everything I know about the law, that the courts use a reasonableness standard and asks of juries to do so as well. And I tend to believe that juries get it right in a lot of cases -- they tend to pass on the benign and unprovable, but support strong legal action for intentional, abusive and/or egregious behavior. Again, not always, but in many cases.

I think that in applying this rational to the Baldoni case and the new Costner stunt woman case, I think you have two opposite ranges of accused behavior. There is the "he looked at me the wrong way/made me feel uncomfortable and I think it could be SH" Blake behavior versus the "he raped me in a scene" without an IC behavior. Juries will see the difference and imo will only support strong legal action for the behavior that is most egregious to set that behavior as a bar.

In wanting to punish someone harshly for lukewarm/non-existent behavior, you are setting a really bad bar that will be ripe for overturning because it simply is not reasonable. And if there is anything that I know about American law, is that it always finds its way back to the reasonableness standard.

That's the way I see it with court cases, and that's why I assert that Baldoni would win if the case is given to a jury. No reasonable person would argue that the standards that the law has set for SH is being met with Blake's accusations. Nowhere even close.

Plus, if the law were to concede that what Blake is accusing amounts to SH, the bar will be lowered to even lesser actions as constituting SH. E.g., if a guy even has the thought of looking Blake's way without an IC present, it would be considered SH. The courts don't intend that to be the case at all. Hence my views on Baldoni having the stronger case. There is just not a lot of evidence that Blake has shown to support any decent notion of SH.

And yes, I can see how the lawyers for this new case (and probably even more that are waiting to see the outcome of Baldoni) are hoping that Blake's case provides the opening needed for their cases to succeed. At the same time, having two cases at opposite ends of the spectrum on SH/SA is not a good thing for Blake, especially given that hers is the one alleging the weakest action.

If we are playing match the posts, I think this is the same person who thought Lively defenders were tracking her location somehow via her comments, fwiw.

And for to know that, it must mean that I am correct. You are the Lively poster who is tracking us. You’ve made a few comments directed at me after I’ve made a post. No one else but me would know this, so I know that you are reading our IP addresses.

I haven’t been on this site all day, and I’m writing now very differently, and on a legal point, which I rarely ever do.

I get that you are following me (following us all). The question remains “why would a dcum mom track random commenters on a supposedly anonymous website? I can’t think of too many moms who would go to such lengths, unless you are not a mom (!), and unless you are broadcasting who I am to others who may be tracking us.

I will contact Jeff and I will make an action against this.

Everyone else, as I’ve said before, your IP is being tracked.

I’m at least glad that over the past hundred of pages or so, several of you have supported my comments.

But it is sickening that the tracking of me is happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because your accusations are out of context and others are outright false. You're trying to assert yourself as an authority when you're just a spectator and have a variety of qualifiers you've made up to determine whose credible when the fact of the matter is everyone involved in this case has some sort of questionable past. Blake has done blackface and married on a plantation and had strong association to Weinstein. Ryan's set killed a stunt woman and he's had numerous affairs with coworkers. Baldoni's set had racist incidents. If we went by this, nobody would be able to speak on anything. Owens is intimately involved and relevant by being a figure witnesses from the set provided inside information. It would be the exact same if they were going to say, Rachel Maddow, who once said Obama was out of his "cotton pickin mind".

Exactly. Sometimes Candace Owens makes good points and has something useful to say, sometimes she doesn’t. I’m discerning enough to know the difference and make a judgement from myself. I don’t need others policing my media consumption. We could say the same about the mainstream media, which has been extremely biased in this case favoring lively. Forbes had a major error in an article where they said swift’s team vehemently denied the witness tampering and spoliation allegations (never happened) and they conveniently didn’t correct it for 24 hrs despite people calling it out in the comments and on Reddit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. I don't agree with you and here's why. It's been my belief that the law doesn't concave to benign actions. What I mean by this is that there is a range of what can be included as harrassment. Is it a glance (very benign and perhaps unprovable) or is it constant contact at all hours of the day/night suggesting sexual behaviors and engagements (not benign and a high level of discomfort + provable)? I want to believe from everything I know about the law, that the courts use a reasonableness standard and asks of juries to do so as well. And I tend to believe that juries get it right in a lot of cases -- they tend to pass on the benign and unprovable, but support strong legal action for intentional, abusive and/or egregious behavior. Again, not always, but in many cases.

I think that in applying this rational to the Baldoni case and the new Costner stunt woman case, I think you have two opposite ranges of accused behavior. There is the "he looked at me the wrong way/made me feel uncomfortable and I think it could be SH" Blake behavior versus the "he raped me in a scene" without an IC behavior. Juries will see the difference and imo will only support strong legal action for the behavior that is most egregious to set that behavior as a bar.

In wanting to punish someone harshly for lukewarm/non-existent behavior, you are setting a really bad bar that will be ripe for overturning because it simply is not reasonable. And if there is anything that I know about American law, is that it always finds its way back to the reasonableness standard.

That's the way I see it with court cases, and that's why I assert that Baldoni would win if the case is given to a jury. No reasonable person would argue that the standards that the law has set for SH is being met with Blake's accusations. Nowhere even close.

Plus, if the law were to concede that what Blake is accusing amounts to SH, the bar will be lowered to even lesser actions as constituting SH. E.g., if a guy even has the thought of looking Blake's way without an IC present, it would be considered SH. The courts don't intend that to be the case at all. Hence my views on Baldoni having the stronger case. There is just not a lot of evidence that Blake has shown to support any decent notion of SH.

And yes, I can see how the lawyers for this new case (and probably even more that are waiting to see the outcome of Baldoni) are hoping that Blake's case provides the opening needed for their cases to succeed. At the same time, having two cases at opposite ends of the spectrum on SH/SA is not a good thing for Blake, especially given that hers is the one alleging the weakest action.

If we are playing match the posts, I think this is the same person who thought Lively defenders were tracking her location somehow via her comments, fwiw.

And for to know that, it must mean that I am correct. You are the Lively poster who is tracking us. You’ve made a few comments directed at me after I’ve made a post. No one else but me would know this, so I know that you are reading our IP addresses.

I haven’t been on this site all day, and I’m writing now very differently, and on a legal point, which I rarely ever do.

I get that you are following me (following us all). The question remains “why would a dcum mom track random commenters on a supposedly anonymous website? I can’t think of too many moms who would go to such lengths, unless you are not a mom (!), and unless you are broadcasting who I am to others who may be tracking us.

I will contact Jeff and I will make an action against this.

Everyone else, as I’ve said before, your IP is being tracked.

I’m at least glad that over the past hundred of pages or so, several of you have supported my comments.

But it is sickening that the tracking of me is happening.

If you're going to cosplay, at least be good at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. I don't agree with you and here's why. It's been my belief that the law doesn't concave to benign actions. What I mean by this is that there is a range of what can be included as harrassment. Is it a glance (very benign and perhaps unprovable) or is it constant contact at all hours of the day/night suggesting sexual behaviors and engagements (not benign and a high level of discomfort + provable)? I want to believe from everything I know about the law, that the courts use a reasonableness standard and asks of juries to do so as well. And I tend to believe that juries get it right in a lot of cases -- they tend to pass on the benign and unprovable, but support strong legal action for intentional, abusive and/or egregious behavior. Again, not always, but in many cases.

I think that in applying this rational to the Baldoni case and the new Costner stunt woman case, I think you have two opposite ranges of accused behavior. There is the "he looked at me the wrong way/made me feel uncomfortable and I think it could be SH" Blake behavior versus the "he raped me in a scene" without an IC behavior. Juries will see the difference and imo will only support strong legal action for the behavior that is most egregious to set that behavior as a bar.

In wanting to punish someone harshly for lukewarm/non-existent behavior, you are setting a really bad bar that will be ripe for overturning because it simply is not reasonable. And if there is anything that I know about American law, is that it always finds its way back to the reasonableness standard.

That's the way I see it with court cases, and that's why I assert that Baldoni would win if the case is given to a jury. No reasonable person would argue that the standards that the law has set for SH is being met with Blake's accusations. Nowhere even close.

Plus, if the law were to concede that what Blake is accusing amounts to SH, the bar will be lowered to even lesser actions as constituting SH. E.g., if a guy even has the thought of looking Blake's way without an IC present, it would be considered SH. The courts don't intend that to be the case at all. Hence my views on Baldoni having the stronger case. There is just not a lot of evidence that Blake has shown to support any decent notion of SH.

And yes, I can see how the lawyers for this new case (and probably even more that are waiting to see the outcome of Baldoni) are hoping that Blake's case provides the opening needed for their cases to succeed. At the same time, having two cases at opposite ends of the spectrum on SH/SA is not a good thing for Blake, especially given that hers is the one alleging the weakest action.

If we are playing match the posts, I think this is the same person who thought Lively defenders were tracking her location somehow via her comments, fwiw.

And for to know that, it must mean that I am correct. You are the Lively poster who is tracking us. You’ve made a few comments directed at me after I’ve made a post. No one else but me would know this, so I know that you are reading our IP addresses.

I haven’t been on this site all day, and I’m writing now very differently, and on a legal point, which I rarely ever do.

I get that you are following me (following us all). The question remains “why would a dcum mom track random commenters on a supposedly anonymous website? I can’t think of too many moms who would go to such lengths, unless you are not a mom (!), and unless you are broadcasting who I am to others who may be tracking us.

I will contact Jeff and I will make an action against this.

Everyone else, as I’ve said before, your IP is being tracked.

I’m at least glad that over the past hundred of pages or so, several of you have supported my comments.

But it is sickening that the tracking of me is happening.

If you're going to cosplay, at least be good at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. I don't agree with you and here's why. It's been my belief that the law doesn't concave to benign actions. What I mean by this is that there is a range of what can be included as harrassment. Is it a glance (very benign and perhaps unprovable) or is it constant contact at all hours of the day/night suggesting sexual behaviors and engagements (not benign and a high level of discomfort + provable)? I want to believe from everything I know about the law, that the courts use a reasonableness standard and asks of juries to do so as well. And I tend to believe that juries get it right in a lot of cases -- they tend to pass on the benign and unprovable, but support strong legal action for intentional, abusive and/or egregious behavior. Again, not always, but in many cases.

I think that in applying this rational to the Baldoni case and the new Costner stunt woman case, I think you have two opposite ranges of accused behavior. There is the "he looked at me the wrong way/made me feel uncomfortable and I think it could be SH" Blake behavior versus the "he raped me in a scene" without an IC behavior. Juries will see the difference and imo will only support strong legal action for the behavior that is most egregious to set that behavior as a bar.

In wanting to punish someone harshly for lukewarm/non-existent behavior, you are setting a really bad bar that will be ripe for overturning because it simply is not reasonable. And if there is anything that I know about American law, is that it always finds its way back to the reasonableness standard.

That's the way I see it with court cases, and that's why I assert that Baldoni would win if the case is given to a jury. No reasonable person would argue that the standards that the law has set for SH is being met with Blake's accusations. Nowhere even close.

Plus, if the law were to concede that what Blake is accusing amounts to SH, the bar will be lowered to even lesser actions as constituting SH. E.g., if a guy even has the thought of looking Blake's way without an IC present, it would be considered SH. The courts don't intend that to be the case at all. Hence my views on Baldoni having the stronger case. There is just not a lot of evidence that Blake has shown to support any decent notion of SH.

And yes, I can see how the lawyers for this new case (and probably even more that are waiting to see the outcome of Baldoni) are hoping that Blake's case provides the opening needed for their cases to succeed. At the same time, having two cases at opposite ends of the spectrum on SH/SA is not a good thing for Blake, especially given that hers is the one alleging the weakest action.

If we are playing match the posts, I think this is the same person who thought Lively defenders were tracking her location somehow via her comments, fwiw.

And for to know that, it must mean that I am correct. You are the Lively poster who is tracking us. You’ve made a few comments directed at me after I’ve made a post. No one else but me would know this, so I know that you are reading our IP addresses.

I haven’t been on this site all day, and I’m writing now very differently, and on a legal point, which I rarely ever do.

I get that you are following me (following us all). The question remains “why would a dcum mom track random commenters on a supposedly anonymous website? I can’t think of too many moms who would go to such lengths, unless you are not a mom (!), and unless you are broadcasting who I am to others who may be tracking us.

I will contact Jeff and I will make an action against this.

Everyone else, as I’ve said before, your IP is being tracked.

I’m at least glad that over the past hundred of pages or so, several of you have supported my comments.

But it is sickening that the tracking of me is happening.

Omg this is amazing!!!

I strongly suspected it was you because you posted about “American law” as though you are not American, and the posts accusing people of tracking you said you were in the US.

Please feel free to contact Jeff, who will confirm that there is no way on earth I am tracking you.

But Baldoni supporters — there you go! These are your peeps!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. I don't agree with you and here's why. It's been my belief that the law doesn't concave to benign actions. What I mean by this is that there is a range of what can be included as harrassment. Is it a glance (very benign and perhaps unprovable) or is it constant contact at all hours of the day/night suggesting sexual behaviors and engagements (not benign and a high level of discomfort + provable)? I want to believe from everything I know about the law, that the courts use a reasonableness standard and asks of juries to do so as well. And I tend to believe that juries get it right in a lot of cases -- they tend to pass on the benign and unprovable, but support strong legal action for intentional, abusive and/or egregious behavior. Again, not always, but in many cases.

I think that in applying this rational to the Baldoni case and the new Costner stunt woman case, I think you have two opposite ranges of accused behavior. There is the "he looked at me the wrong way/made me feel uncomfortable and I think it could be SH" Blake behavior versus the "he raped me in a scene" without an IC behavior. Juries will see the difference and imo will only support strong legal action for the behavior that is most egregious to set that behavior as a bar.

In wanting to punish someone harshly for lukewarm/non-existent behavior, you are setting a really bad bar that will be ripe for overturning because it simply is not reasonable. And if there is anything that I know about American law, is that it always finds its way back to the reasonableness standard.

That's the way I see it with court cases, and that's why I assert that Baldoni would win if the case is given to a jury. No reasonable person would argue that the standards that the law has set for SH is being met with Blake's accusations. Nowhere even close.

Plus, if the law were to concede that what Blake is accusing amounts to SH, the bar will be lowered to even lesser actions as constituting SH. E.g., if a guy even has the thought of looking Blake's way without an IC present, it would be considered SH. The courts don't intend that to be the case at all. Hence my views on Baldoni having the stronger case. There is just not a lot of evidence that Blake has shown to support any decent notion of SH.

And yes, I can see how the lawyers for this new case (and probably even more that are waiting to see the outcome of Baldoni) are hoping that Blake's case provides the opening needed for their cases to succeed. At the same time, having two cases at opposite ends of the spectrum on SH/SA is not a good thing for Blake, especially given that hers is the one alleging the weakest action.

If we are playing match the posts, I think this is the same person who thought Lively defenders were tracking her location somehow via her comments, fwiw.

And for to know that, it must mean that I am correct. You are the Lively poster who is tracking us. You’ve made a few comments directed at me after I’ve made a post. No one else but me would know this, so I know that you are reading our IP addresses.

I haven’t been on this site all day, and I’m writing now very differently, and on a legal point, which I rarely ever do.

I get that you are following me (following us all). The question remains “why would a dcum mom track random commenters on a supposedly anonymous website? I can’t think of too many moms who would go to such lengths, unless you are not a mom (!), and unless you are broadcasting who I am to others who may be tracking us.

I will contact Jeff and I will make an action against this.

Everyone else, as I’ve said before, your IP is being tracked.

I’m at least glad that over the past hundred of pages or so, several of you have supported my comments.

But it is sickening that the tracking of me is happening.

Omg this is amazing!!!

I strongly suspected it was you because you posted about “American law” as though you are not American, and the posts accusing people of tracking you said you were in the US.

Please feel free to contact Jeff, who will confirm that there is no way on earth I am tracking you.

But Baldoni supporters — there you go! These are your peeps!!!!

Ugh — typo — I strongly suspected it was you because you posted about “American law” as though you are not American, and the posts accusing people of tracking you said you were NOT in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. I don't agree with you and here's why. It's been my belief that the law doesn't concave to benign actions. What I mean by this is that there is a range of what can be included as harrassment. Is it a glance (very benign and perhaps unprovable) or is it constant contact at all hours of the day/night suggesting sexual behaviors and engagements (not benign and a high level of discomfort + provable)? I want to believe from everything I know about the law, that the courts use a reasonableness standard and asks of juries to do so as well. And I tend to believe that juries get it right in a lot of cases -- they tend to pass on the benign and unprovable, but support strong legal action for intentional, abusive and/or egregious behavior. Again, not always, but in many cases.

I think that in applying this rational to the Baldoni case and the new Costner stunt woman case, I think you have two opposite ranges of accused behavior. There is the "he looked at me the wrong way/made me feel uncomfortable and I think it could be SH" Blake behavior versus the "he raped me in a scene" without an IC behavior. Juries will see the difference and imo will only support strong legal action for the behavior that is most egregious to set that behavior as a bar.

In wanting to punish someone harshly for lukewarm/non-existent behavior, you are setting a really bad bar that will be ripe for overturning because it simply is not reasonable. And if there is anything that I know about American law, is that it always finds its way back to the reasonableness standard.

That's the way I see it with court cases, and that's why I assert that Baldoni would win if the case is given to a jury. No reasonable person would argue that the standards that the law has set for SH is being met with Blake's accusations. Nowhere even close.

Plus, if the law were to concede that what Blake is accusing amounts to SH, the bar will be lowered to even lesser actions as constituting SH. E.g., if a guy even has the thought of looking Blake's way without an IC present, it would be considered SH. The courts don't intend that to be the case at all. Hence my views on Baldoni having the stronger case. There is just not a lot of evidence that Blake has shown to support any decent notion of SH.

And yes, I can see how the lawyers for this new case (and probably even more that are waiting to see the outcome of Baldoni) are hoping that Blake's case provides the opening needed for their cases to succeed. At the same time, having two cases at opposite ends of the spectrum on SH/SA is not a good thing for Blake, especially given that hers is the one alleging the weakest action.

If we are playing match the posts, I think this is the same person who thought Lively defenders were tracking her location somehow via her comments, fwiw.

And for to know that, it must mean that I am correct. You are the Lively poster who is tracking us. You’ve made a few comments directed at me after I’ve made a post. No one else but me would know this, so I know that you are reading our IP addresses.

I haven’t been on this site all day, and I’m writing now very differently, and on a legal point, which I rarely ever do.

I get that you are following me (following us all). The question remains “why would a dcum mom track random commenters on a supposedly anonymous website? I can’t think of too many moms who would go to such lengths, unless you are not a mom (!), and unless you are broadcasting who I am to others who may be tracking us.

I will contact Jeff and I will make an action against this.

Everyone else, as I’ve said before, your IP is being tracked.

I’m at least glad that over the past hundred of pages or so, several of you have supported my comments.

But it is sickening that the tracking of me is happening.

Omg this is amazing!!!

I strongly suspected it was you because you posted about “American law” as though you are not American, and the posts accusing people of tracking you said you were in the US.

Please feel free to contact Jeff, who will confirm that there is no way on earth I am tracking you.

But Baldoni supporters — there you go! These are your peeps!!!!

Ugh — typo — I strongly suspected it was you because you posted about “American law” as though you are not American, and the posts accusing people of tracking you said you were NOT in the US.

You can't even type. Just be quiet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. I don't agree with you and here's why. It's been my belief that the law doesn't concave to benign actions. What I mean by this is that there is a range of what can be included as harrassment. Is it a glance (very benign and perhaps unprovable) or is it constant contact at all hours of the day/night suggesting sexual behaviors and engagements (not benign and a high level of discomfort + provable)? I want to believe from everything I know about the law, that the courts use a reasonableness standard and asks of juries to do so as well. And I tend to believe that juries get it right in a lot of cases -- they tend to pass on the benign and unprovable, but support strong legal action for intentional, abusive and/or egregious behavior. Again, not always, but in many cases.

I think that in applying this rational to the Baldoni case and the new Costner stunt woman case, I think you have two opposite ranges of accused behavior. There is the "he looked at me the wrong way/made me feel uncomfortable and I think it could be SH" Blake behavior versus the "he raped me in a scene" without an IC behavior. Juries will see the difference and imo will only support strong legal action for the behavior that is most egregious to set that behavior as a bar.

In wanting to punish someone harshly for lukewarm/non-existent behavior, you are setting a really bad bar that will be ripe for overturning because it simply is not reasonable. And if there is anything that I know about American law, is that it always finds its way back to the reasonableness standard.

That's the way I see it with court cases, and that's why I assert that Baldoni would win if the case is given to a jury. No reasonable person would argue that the standards that the law has set for SH is being met with Blake's accusations. Nowhere even close.

Plus, if the law were to concede that what Blake is accusing amounts to SH, the bar will be lowered to even lesser actions as constituting SH. E.g., if a guy even has the thought of looking Blake's way without an IC present, it would be considered SH. The courts don't intend that to be the case at all. Hence my views on Baldoni having the stronger case. There is just not a lot of evidence that Blake has shown to support any decent notion of SH.

And yes, I can see how the lawyers for this new case (and probably even more that are waiting to see the outcome of Baldoni) are hoping that Blake's case provides the opening needed for their cases to succeed. At the same time, having two cases at opposite ends of the spectrum on SH/SA is not a good thing for Blake, especially given that hers is the one alleging the weakest action.

If we are playing match the posts, I think this is the same person who thought Lively defenders were tracking her location somehow via her comments, fwiw.

And for to know that, it must mean that I am correct. You are the Lively poster who is tracking us. You’ve made a few comments directed at me after I’ve made a post. No one else but me would know this, so I know that you are reading our IP addresses.

I haven’t been on this site all day, and I’m writing now very differently, and on a legal point, which I rarely ever do.

I get that you are following me (following us all). The question remains “why would a dcum mom track random commenters on a supposedly anonymous website? I can’t think of too many moms who would go to such lengths, unless you are not a mom (!), and unless you are broadcasting who I am to others who may be tracking us.

I will contact Jeff and I will make an action against this.

Everyone else, as I’ve said before, your IP is being tracked.

I’m at least glad that over the past hundred of pages or so, several of you have supported my comments.

But it is sickening that the tracking of me is happening.

If you're going to cosplay, at least be good at it.

Do. Lol. Exactly.

Oh wow, the paranoid tracking mom is suddenly back! What a coinky dink that she showed up just right after pro BL pr lady was mentioning how Baldoni posters are crazy and paranoid??! WOW. That’s amazing!

[Anonymous]

^DP obviously