Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of the people who think compensatory damages don't have to be linked to some kind of actual economic loss... Why are you posting legal theories in a thread if you literally don't understand the basics of civil law claims? Thanks to the poster who spelled that out.

And, oh look, the Vanzan allegations don't really matter at all with respect to this case and "someone on TikTok said so" doesn't count as evidence in support of those allegations to begin with. Color me shocked.

Dp. Oh please, some non lawyer provided the most basic of explanations. Why are you so concerned about damages anyway? You told us his entire complaint would be tossed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The book is a romance novel, not a dissertation on survivor rights.

The book is not a romance novel. Hoover herself has stated multiple times it is a personal story inspired by her mother's experience with domestic abuse. Like Lively, you've never read the book so you don't know what you're talking about.

Lively spoke extensively at premieres and in interviews about how the story was about the complexity of one woman's life, not as a "DV victim" but as a woman, an entrepreneur, a friend, and a mother, who also experienced DV. That's actually something that really resonates with me as a survivor fo sexual violence -- my identity is not "victim". I'm a whole person who has been through something difficult. A movie about my life that focused on my experiences being raped and harassed would not provide a very good picture of who I am as a person.

The movie isn't about you. The film is about the character Lily and the overarching issue of domestic violence. Your rationalization of Lively's poor marketing clearly didn't resonate with other women as it couldn't generate the film sale's into product sales for Blake Brown and Betty Buzz. And it seems like you and other Lively supporters keep moving the goal post every other week regarding her tone deaf campaign. First the marketing was Sony's concept. Then it was Blake's brainchild. Then it was back to Sony and them "banning" her from talking about dv. Now apparently it was Blake's organic framing the entire time. While she couldn't even describe what the film was about or bring light to the main topic of the film (as Hoover intended), in every interview Baldoni was able to accurately lay out the synopsis, the backstory of the characters, why the film and theme was important, and resources and organizations for dv victims. Blake simply did not care for the source material. She used the film as a launching pad for the rejuvenation of her career.

DP to who you’re responding to, but someone tells you their traumatic personal experience and your response doesn’t acknowledge it at all and waves it off with “This movie isn’t about you.” And more disingenuous towing of the party line that ignores the contents of the posted video as well?

Get the eff out of here and don’t bother coming back. So rude. No thank you.

I acknowledged it by responding. I have no obligation whatsoever to capitulate to someone whose reasoning for supporting another woman in this litigation is simply on the basis of sharing the same anatomy. That is the hallmark of a low-iq, emotionally led, and irrational individual full of hubris that believes their perspective is the sole truth and cannot be challenged. That is not how the court system works and it's crystal clear that people like you and her are the reason we have these laws in the first place. Otherwise anyone you didn't like you would be able to accuse of anything with impunity. Just like Blake. You want Baldoni to pay for the sins of your exes and other men you've had harrowing experiences with and that's not how it works.

Couldn’t agree with your last sentence more. Some people approach life with a perpetual victim mentality.

[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:We are quickly approaching the FOFO stage for Lively and her supporters.

Ryan and Blake’s supporters are not real. As soon as the money spigot is turned off, they will all disappear. Justin and the other victims aren’t paying any shills and bot farms, they have organic support.

I am a real person who supports Blake's claims. I wouldn't say I'm a "Ryan and Blake" supporter -- I don't really care about them as actors or celebs. But I think what she's alleging likely happened and that it's not right for a woman to be treated that way on a film set by a director. I am a survivor of workplace harassment and sexual assault, and have worked as an advocate for SA/SH survivors since then (through the same organization where I found solace when I was dealing with PTSD from my experience).

I don't think Blake's experience is the worst example of SH I've ever heard of, far from it, and certainly she's better resourced and supported than the vast majority of survivors. But that's a reason to support her, not to dismiss her. Most survivors don't have the means or support system to get justice. I didn't -- I quit my job, dealt with my harasser saying negative things about me to former colleagues and preemptively calling me a liar and criticizing my mental health to pre-empt me coming forward with allegations, went into a different industry, got therapy, and moved on. It was unsatisfying but the best outcome for me, as I know trying to sue would have been horrible to go through and I didn't have a good support system at the time. But that makes it all the more important for people who are in a position to litigate, and who can deal with the inevitable character attacks and expenses, to do so.

FTR, if it came out that it was all a lie and that Baldoni was great on set and she made up all these allegations, I will retract my support. But right now I believe her and would like to hear from witnesses and hear both Baldoni and Lively testify. I think she'll be proven truthful in the end, I just hope people listen to her.

But that’s the thing, she shouldn’t have to show he was great onset. It could have been a poorly run set and he could not have been great, that doesn’t mean that he sexually harassed her. That’s the problem I have with her claims. I’ve no doubt that she experienced some discomfort, but I don’t think it meets the bar of sexual harassment.

It is within his realm to ask her to do certain scenes and she didn’t want to do them so she didn’t do them. If that conversation is uncomfortable you should not be an actress doing these kinds of movies. You simply shouldn’t. she had a ton of people supporting her, she was never not without her assistant and team on set with her and then the moment she felt uncomfortable she had her very powerful husband and a Sony producer. She was much more powerful than him and had a set of ridiculous harassing behaviors on her own. Inviting someone to your apartment so your husband can berate him is harassment. Constantly having your lawyer send threatening letters that you’re going to quit and derailed the movie is harassment. Violating his right as a director to get in the editing bay when she had no way to do that is harassment.

DP, but I disagree that the examples you give of Lively "harassing" Baldoni are harassment.

Inviting Baldoni to their apartment to have work-related meetings about issues related to the production (including Baldoni's completely inappropriate decision to ask Lively's trainer for her weight, something the trainer immediately tracked as problematic behavior which is why he told Blake and Ryan right after it occurred) was convenient because Wayfarer did not have NY offices and when these meetings occurred, the movie was not in production (meetings that occurred during production appear to have taken place on set). Were Baldoni/Wayfarer providing another location for meetings to take place? Baldoni must have been in a hotel or rental during this time, it's unlikely it was as big or comfortable as Lively's apartment, which likely has office space and meeting since they have so many business ventures and likely use it a lot for those purposes.

It was inappropriate for Ryan to yell at Baldoni but it was also unprofessional and inappropriate for Baldoni to ask his lead actress's personal trainer to disclose her weight.

A lawyer making contract demands and threatening that his client may walk if they are not met is a business negotiation, not harassment. It sounds like Lively's lawyer/agent drive very hard bargains. I'm sure that is frustrating to deal with but it's also not uncommon in Hollywood and filmmaking is a weird business to be in if you think a lawyer being a tough negotiator is a form of "harassment." Grow up.

Lively got the okay from Sony for her work in the editing bay. The DGA guidelines for directors are just guidelines, and Baldoni has not produced evidence that this was a violation of any contract. He also isn't suing Sony over the editing or their decision to release Blake's cut. That's called a "creative dispute" and there's no evidence that Lively actually "harassed" him about it. Rather, she asked for and received editing time with her own editing team to produce a cut of the film that Sony ultimately okayed and that went on to make an insane amount of money, including for Baldoni. That's not harassment.

Meanwhile, Lively is alleging that Baldoni touched her inappropriately, that Baldoni and Heath entered her trailer without knocking while she was undressed, that they pressured her to do unscripted nudity and unscripted sexual scenarios on screen, that they failed to fully close the set or cut feeds to monitors when Lively was performing an intimate childbirth scene wearing only a hospital gown and a pair of briefs, that Baldoni repeatedly claimed to be communing with her dead father, that Heath (at Baldoni's direction) showed her an intimate video of his nude wife without asking permission first, etc. These are examples of harassing behaviors.

Preach!!!

Also, yet another amicus brief has dropped, this one from the National Organization for Women and several other groups, focusing on the DARVO tactics used by men accused of SH, particularly in filing defamation suits against their accusers. They cite to 6 full pages of news articles etc. where men have pulled this absolute BS.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.283.1.pdf

This brief is filed by the NYC chapter of NOW. I’m sure we will learn of the Lively connection in short order.

Blake’s MTD called into question how 47.1 should be interpreted. The filing of amicus with literally no new arguments months later remains highly suspicious..

Look at you, telling these womens and survivor groups to be quiet like a good little girl.

Who said that?

Aren't you? You're arguing that these briefs are all "highly suspicious" and contain "literally no new arguments" that were each filed "months" after they should have been, but you also think that the judge should indeed consider them and that womens and survivor groups should continue to file them? Wait, allow me to sell you this bridge.

Please point out the new arguments in the amicus briefs? There simply isn’t any. So, sure, let’s pretend this is anything more than a pr stunt organized by Blake’s lawyers. When your high profile best friend publicly disavows you and your claims, use your power and influence to make it look like you have a cause.

Seems clear you haven't read them and don't seem to understand the purpose of amicus briefs. That's a shame. Nice sea lioning, though.

Nice no answer, answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Vanzan has been relegated to literally a footnote in this case as predicted. And I'm in the group that thinks it was unethical, but as directed to the state court where it was filed. Unsatisfactory though it may be it just isn't going to move the needle in this suit. But we may get some flashy move from Freedman to deflect.

I don’t agree. The judge said they didn’t meet the probable cause standard with what was presented, seems an invitation to revisit the argument later with more evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of the people who think compensatory damages don't have to be linked to some kind of actual economic loss... Why are you posting legal theories in a thread if you literally don't understand the basics of civil law claims? Thanks to the poster who spelled that out.

Blake is also suing for *checks notes*...lost earnings and reputational harm. Except she didn't specify the amount she actually lost from her businesses or how the so called smear campaign effected the sales of Blake Brown and Betty Buzz. Didn't you realize you actually have to have prove some kind of economic loss? Why are you posting legal theories in a thread if you literally don't understand the basics of civil law claims? 😒

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Vanzan has been relegated to literally a footnote in this case as predicted. And I'm in the group that thinks it was unethical, but as directed to the state court where it was filed. Unsatisfactory though it may be it just isn't going to move the needle in this suit. But we may get some flashy move from Freedman to deflect.

I don’t agree. The judge said they didn’t meet the probable cause standard with what was presented, seems an invitation to revisit the argument later with more evidence.

I don't read it that way, because he states in the footnote that they did not provide evidence of their assertions, but he doesn't leave it open for Wayfarer to renew their motion like he did the other day with Lively. That subpoena was not in his court and it seems like he's not particularly inclined to get into it. Feels like he wants to avoid drama, but we are plenty of it from both sides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the people who think compensatory damages don't have to be linked to some kind of actual economic loss... Why are you posting legal theories in a thread if you literally don't understand the basics of civil law claims? Thanks to the poster who spelled that out.

Blake is also suing for *checks notes*...lost earnings and reputational harm. Except she didn't specify the amount she actually lost from her businesses or how the so called smear campaign effected the sales of Blake Brown and Betty Buzz. Didn't you realize you actually have to have prove some kind of economic loss? Why are you posting legal theories in a thread if you literally don't understand the basics of civil law claims? 😒

Of course she has to demonstrate her damages, but her supporters are not in here saying every day that Baldoni needs to just settle with her for 8 or 9 figures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Vanzan has been relegated to literally a footnote in this case as predicted. And I'm in the group that thinks it was unethical, but as directed to the state court where it was filed. Unsatisfactory though it may be it just isn't going to move the needle in this suit. But we may get some flashy move from Freedman to deflect.

I don’t agree. The judge said they didn’t meet the probable cause standard with what was presented, seems an invitation to revisit the argument later with more evidence.

I don't read it that way, because he states in the footnote that they did not provide evidence of their assertions, but he doesn't leave it open for Wayfarer to renew their motion like he did the other day with Lively. That subpoena was not in his court and it seems like he's not particularly inclined to get into it. Feels like he wants to avoid drama, but we are plenty of it from both sides.

Not the same thing, Blake has to either reach agreement with Freedman on the dismissal or apply to the court. It’s a binary situation. The claim has to be dismissed by one of those two methods.

I think it’s notable that the judge doesn’t say that the crime fraud exception couldn’t be based on Van Zan. Instead, he says there wasn’t enough evidence presented. I personally don’t think the documents Freedman is seeking in this motion are particularly important, so I wouldn’t renew this particular motion but I think we could see the crime fraud exception argued again in this litigation.

[Anonymous]

Can someone please explain the difference between "a protective order prohibiting the Wayfarer Parties from enforcing a subpoena" and quashing the subpoena? Is it the same thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The book is a romance novel, not a dissertation on survivor rights.

The book is not a romance novel. Hoover herself has stated multiple times it is a personal story inspired by her mother's experience with domestic abuse. Like Lively, you've never read the book so you don't know what you're talking about.

Lively spoke extensively at premieres and in interviews about how the story was about the complexity of one woman's life, not as a "DV victim" but as a woman, an entrepreneur, a friend, and a mother, who also experienced DV. That's actually something that really resonates with me as a survivor fo sexual violence -- my identity is not "victim". I'm a whole person who has been through something difficult. A movie about my life that focused on my experiences being raped and harassed would not provide a very good picture of who I am as a person.

The movie isn't about you. The film is about the character Lily and the overarching issue of domestic violence. Your rationalization of Lively's poor marketing clearly didn't resonate with other women as it couldn't generate the film sale's into product sales for Blake Brown and Betty Buzz. And it seems like you and other Lively supporters keep moving the goal post every other week regarding her tone deaf campaign. First the marketing was Sony's concept. Then it was Blake's brainchild. Then it was back to Sony and them "banning" her from talking about dv. Now apparently it was Blake's organic framing the entire time. While she couldn't even describe what the film was about or bring light to the main topic of the film (as Hoover intended), in every interview Baldoni was able to accurately lay out the synopsis, the backstory of the characters, why the film and theme was important, and resources and organizations for dv victims. Blake simply did not care for the source material. She used the film as a launching pad for the rejuvenation of her career.

DP to who you’re responding to, but someone tells you their traumatic personal experience and your response doesn’t acknowledge it at all and waves it off with “This movie isn’t about you.” And more disingenuous towing of the party line that ignores the contents of the posted video as well?

Get the eff out of here and don’t bother coming back. So rude. No thank you.

I acknowledged it by responding. I have no obligation whatsoever to capitulate to someone whose reasoning for supporting another woman in this litigation is simply on the basis of sharing the same anatomy. That is the hallmark of a low-iq, emotionally led, and irrational individual full of hubris that believes their perspective is the sole truth and cannot be challenged. That is not how the court system works and it's crystal clear that people like you and her are the reason we have these laws in the first place. Otherwise anyone you didn't like you would be able to accuse of anything with impunity. Just like Blake. You want Baldoni to pay for the sins of your exes and other men you've had harrowing experiences with and that's not how it works.

Was it only last night that a survivor or rape and sexual harassment tried to discourage my participation here by saying that my comment arguing Lively’s perspective was like “a slap in the face” to her? (To which I said I was sorry for her experience, said I didn’t understand, and asked her to explain, to which she did not respond).

But now someone else talks about similar experiences and you think it’s okay to insult and belittle them?

Very consistent with Baldoni’s male feminism and overall approach. Your whole comment above is vile. And you have made completely wrong (but again, totally on brand) assumptions about me and, I’m sure, PP. Hint: defending a woman as done here in SA/SH issues doesn’t mean you’re emotional, dumb, irrational, or vindictive and it’s gross that you think it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain the difference between "a protective order prohibiting the Wayfarer Parties from enforcing a subpoena" and quashing the subpoena? Is it the same thing?

Yes, he’s just granting the specific relief sought by the moving party, but the effect is the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The book is a romance novel, not a dissertation on survivor rights.

The book is not a romance novel. Hoover herself has stated multiple times it is a personal story inspired by her mother's experience with domestic abuse. Like Lively, you've never read the book so you don't know what you're talking about.

Lively spoke extensively at premieres and in interviews about how the story was about the complexity of one woman's life, not as a "DV victim" but as a woman, an entrepreneur, a friend, and a mother, who also experienced DV. That's actually something that really resonates with me as a survivor fo sexual violence -- my identity is not "victim". I'm a whole person who has been through something difficult. A movie about my life that focused on my experiences being raped and harassed would not provide a very good picture of who I am as a person.

The movie isn't about you. The film is about the character Lily and the overarching issue of domestic violence. Your rationalization of Lively's poor marketing clearly didn't resonate with other women as it couldn't generate the film sale's into product sales for Blake Brown and Betty Buzz. And it seems like you and other Lively supporters keep moving the goal post every other week regarding her tone deaf campaign. First the marketing was Sony's concept. Then it was Blake's brainchild. Then it was back to Sony and them "banning" her from talking about dv. Now apparently it was Blake's organic framing the entire time. While she couldn't even describe what the film was about or bring light to the main topic of the film (as Hoover intended), in every interview Baldoni was able to accurately lay out the synopsis, the backstory of the characters, why the film and theme was important, and resources and organizations for dv victims. Blake simply did not care for the source material. She used the film as a launching pad for the rejuvenation of her career.

DP to who you’re responding to, but someone tells you their traumatic personal experience and your response doesn’t acknowledge it at all and waves it off with “This movie isn’t about you.” And more disingenuous towing of the party line that ignores the contents of the posted video as well?

Get the eff out of here and don’t bother coming back. So rude. No thank you.

I acknowledged it by responding. I have no obligation whatsoever to capitulate to someone whose reasoning for supporting another woman in this litigation is simply on the basis of sharing the same anatomy. That is the hallmark of a low-iq, emotionally led, and irrational individual full of hubris that believes their perspective is the sole truth and cannot be challenged. That is not how the court system works and it's crystal clear that people like you and her are the reason we have these laws in the first place. Otherwise anyone you didn't like you would be able to accuse of anything with impunity. Just like Blake. You want Baldoni to pay for the sins of your exes and other men you've had harrowing experiences with and that's not how it works.

Was it only last night that a survivor or rape and sexual harassment tried to discourage my participation here by saying that my comment arguing Lively’s perspective was like “a slap in the face” to her? (To which I said I was sorry for her experience, said I didn’t understand, and asked her to explain, to which she did not respond).

But now someone else talks about similar experiences and you think it’s okay to insult and belittle them?

Very consistent with Baldoni’s male feminism and overall approach. Your whole comment above is vile. And you have made completely wrong (but again, totally on brand) assumptions about me and, I’m sure, PP. Hint: defending a woman as done here in SA/SH issues doesn’t mean you’re emotional, dumb, irrational, or vindictive and it’s gross that you think it does.

Using fabricated sexual harassment claims to destroy the reputations of others and glorify oneself is also gross. Sort of like the difference between people actually dying of cancer and grifters who fake having cancer to get sympathy and charity money. Culling out the latter from the former is not an attack on cancer patients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The book is a romance novel, not a dissertation on survivor rights.

The book is not a romance novel. Hoover herself has stated multiple times it is a personal story inspired by her mother's experience with domestic abuse. Like Lively, you've never read the book so you don't know what you're talking about.

Lively spoke extensively at premieres and in interviews about how the story was about the complexity of one woman's life, not as a "DV victim" but as a woman, an entrepreneur, a friend, and a mother, who also experienced DV. That's actually something that really resonates with me as a survivor fo sexual violence -- my identity is not "victim". I'm a whole person who has been through something difficult. A movie about my life that focused on my experiences being raped and harassed would not provide a very good picture of who I am as a person.

The movie isn't about you. The film is about the character Lily and the overarching issue of domestic violence. Your rationalization of Lively's poor marketing clearly didn't resonate with other women as it couldn't generate the film sale's into product sales for Blake Brown and Betty Buzz. And it seems like you and other Lively supporters keep moving the goal post every other week regarding her tone deaf campaign. First the marketing was Sony's concept. Then it was Blake's brainchild. Then it was back to Sony and them "banning" her from talking about dv. Now apparently it was Blake's organic framing the entire time. While she couldn't even describe what the film was about or bring light to the main topic of the film (as Hoover intended), in every interview Baldoni was able to accurately lay out the synopsis, the backstory of the characters, why the film and theme was important, and resources and organizations for dv victims. Blake simply did not care for the source material. She used the film as a launching pad for the rejuvenation of her career.

DP to who you’re responding to, but someone tells you their traumatic personal experience and your response doesn’t acknowledge it at all and waves it off with “This movie isn’t about you.” And more disingenuous towing of the party line that ignores the contents of the posted video as well?

Get the eff out of here and don’t bother coming back. So rude. No thank you.

I acknowledged it by responding. I have no obligation whatsoever to capitulate to someone whose reasoning for supporting another woman in this litigation is simply on the basis of sharing the same anatomy. That is the hallmark of a low-iq, emotionally led, and irrational individual full of hubris that believes their perspective is the sole truth and cannot be challenged. That is not how the court system works and it's crystal clear that people like you and her are the reason we have these laws in the first place. Otherwise anyone you didn't like you would be able to accuse of anything with impunity. Just like Blake. You want Baldoni to pay for the sins of your exes and other men you've had harrowing experiences with and that's not how it works.

Was it only last night that a survivor or rape and sexual harassment tried to discourage my participation here by saying that my comment arguing Lively’s perspective was like “a slap in the face” to her? (To which I said I was sorry for her experience, said I didn’t understand, and asked her to explain, to which she did not respond).

But now someone else talks about similar experiences and you think it’s okay to insult and belittle them?

Very consistent with Baldoni’s male feminism and overall approach. Your whole comment above is vile. And you have made completely wrong (but again, totally on brand) assumptions about me and, I’m sure, PP. Hint: defending a woman as done here in SA/SH issues doesn’t mean you’re emotional, dumb, irrational, or vindictive and it’s gross that you think it does.

Using fabricated sexual harassment claims to destroy the reputations of others and glorify oneself is also gross. Sort of like the difference between people actually dying of cancer and grifters who fake having cancer to get sympathy and charity money. Culling out the latter from the former is not an attack on cancer patients.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the people who think compensatory damages don't have to be linked to some kind of actual economic loss... Why are you posting legal theories in a thread if you literally don't understand the basics of civil law claims? Thanks to the poster who spelled that out.

And, oh look, the Vanzan allegations don't really matter at all with respect to this case and "someone on TikTok said so" doesn't count as evidence in support of those allegations to begin with. Color me shocked.

Dp. Oh please, some non lawyer provided the most basic of explanations. Why are you so concerned about damages anyway? You told us his entire complaint would be tossed.

I don't know who you think I am, but I definitely never said his whole complaint would be tossed. (The only complaints that I think will get tossed at some stage are the one against the NYT and possibly those of some of the non-Baldoni parties if they don't replead well and soon.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The book is a romance novel, not a dissertation on survivor rights.

The book is not a romance novel. Hoover herself has stated multiple times it is a personal story inspired by her mother's experience with domestic abuse. Like Lively, you've never read the book so you don't know what you're talking about.

Lively spoke extensively at premieres and in interviews about how the story was about the complexity of one woman's life, not as a "DV victim" but as a woman, an entrepreneur, a friend, and a mother, who also experienced DV. That's actually something that really resonates with me as a survivor fo sexual violence -- my identity is not "victim". I'm a whole person who has been through something difficult. A movie about my life that focused on my experiences being raped and harassed would not provide a very good picture of who I am as a person.

The movie isn't about you. The film is about the character Lily and the overarching issue of domestic violence. Your rationalization of Lively's poor marketing clearly didn't resonate with other women as it couldn't generate the film sale's into product sales for Blake Brown and Betty Buzz. And it seems like you and other Lively supporters keep moving the goal post every other week regarding her tone deaf campaign. First the marketing was Sony's concept. Then it was Blake's brainchild. Then it was back to Sony and them "banning" her from talking about dv. Now apparently it was Blake's organic framing the entire time. While she couldn't even describe what the film was about or bring light to the main topic of the film (as Hoover intended), in every interview Baldoni was able to accurately lay out the synopsis, the backstory of the characters, why the film and theme was important, and resources and organizations for dv victims. Blake simply did not care for the source material. She used the film as a launching pad for the rejuvenation of her career.

DP to who you’re responding to, but someone tells you their traumatic personal experience and your response doesn’t acknowledge it at all and waves it off with “This movie isn’t about you.” And more disingenuous towing of the party line that ignores the contents of the posted video as well?

Get the eff out of here and don’t bother coming back. So rude. No thank you.

I acknowledged it by responding. I have no obligation whatsoever to capitulate to someone whose reasoning for supporting another woman in this litigation is simply on the basis of sharing the same anatomy. That is the hallmark of a low-iq, emotionally led, and irrational individual full of hubris that believes their perspective is the sole truth and cannot be challenged. That is not how the court system works and it's crystal clear that people like you and her are the reason we have these laws in the first place. Otherwise anyone you didn't like you would be able to accuse of anything with impunity. Just like Blake. You want Baldoni to pay for the sins of your exes and other men you've had harrowing experiences with and that's not how it works.

Was it only last night that a survivor or rape and sexual harassment tried to discourage my participation here by saying that my comment arguing Lively’s perspective was like “a slap in the face” to her? (To which I said I was sorry for her experience, said I didn’t understand, and asked her to explain, to which she did not respond).

But now someone else talks about similar experiences and you think it’s okay to insult and belittle them?

Very consistent with Baldoni’s male feminism and overall approach. Your whole comment above is vile. And you have made completely wrong (but again, totally on brand) assumptions about me and, I’m sure, PP. Hint: defending a woman as done here in SA/SH issues doesn’t mean you’re emotional, dumb, irrational, or vindictive and it’s gross that you think it does.

Using fabricated sexual harassment claims to destroy the reputations of others and glorify oneself is also gross. Sort of like the difference between people actually dying of cancer and grifters who fake having cancer to get sympathy and charity money. Culling out the latter from the former is not an attack on cancer patients.

Just absolutely consistent (for you and yours) application of a double standard. You don’t have all the facts, but female victims can be addressed and treated as grifters that don’t get a say according to your whim, while the victims you do approve of should get a voice. Totally ignores my questioning of the wrong and stupid assumptions you made re lively defenders — that they are emotional, dumb, irrational or vindictive simply because you would like to think them so.

Go crawl back under your rock. Try reading some of the amicus briefs because they might help explain to you why you are so inclined to believe bad things about female accusers of SH.