Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also can't believe nobody here is talking about what amazing things might be revealed in these Bryan Freedman texts/emails/telegrams etc. involving Vitsuscka.

It seems slimy that BF texts with DM reporters. Not unexpected though.

??? leslie sloane literally texts with DM reporters herself. page 121

so you admit you think leslie is slimy too. 👍

forgot the link: https://thelawsuitinfo.com/downloads/timeline-of-relevant-events.pdf

[Anonymous]

Blake Lively left fans perplexed over her latest social media post as she playfully offered her floral arranging services to fans amid her legal war with Justin Baldoni.

Although she has certainly had her hands full navigating her ongoing lawsuit against her former It Ends with Us costar, 41, the Gossip Girl star, 37, took a much-needed break from defending herself to show off one of her many talents.

'My flowers babies, from seeds, to cutting, to arrangement,' she wrote on her Instagram Story, alongside an innocuous picture of peonies and Russian sage placed into a vase on her dining room table.

In a bizarre move, the mother-of-four, who has an estimated personal net worth of $30 million, joked that she was open for business to create floral arrangements for her followers' 'next graduation, funeral or wedding.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14785215/blake-lively-funeral-arrangements-fans-ends-post-lawsuit.html

But Justin's the one whose a weirdo. This birdbrain still doesn't get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also can't believe nobody here is talking about what amazing things might be revealed in these Bryan Freedman texts/emails/telegrams etc. involving Vitsuscka.

It seems slimy that BF texts with DM reporters. Not unexpected though.

??? leslie sloane literally texts with DM reporters herself. page 121

so you admit you think leslie is slimy too. 👍

Sure, but she's a PR person so I inherently find that profession slimy. He's an attorney which is someone I expect would uphold confidentiality although I know some people consider all attorneys slimy too...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More good news for Lively's case just in:

Sloane and Vituscka have worked out an agreement whereby Vituscka has filed an declaration, stating, essentially, the following (as paraphrased by Sloane) that explains he got certain facts wrong in his article which he regrets, and which I believe basically absolves Sloane of liability for defamation; as a result Sloane is dropping her motion to compel against Vituscka:

"The Sloane Parties and Vituscka have reached an agreement wherein Vituscka furnished a sworn declaration stating, in relevant part, that 'Ms. Sloane never told me that Ms. Lively was sexually harassed or sexually assaulted by Justin Baldoni or anyone else.' Ex. A ¶ 5. The text messages appearing at paragraph 193 of the Wayfarer Parties’ Amended Complaint were therefore a 'mistake,' the truth of which the Wayfarer Parties never confirmed prior to filing their complaints that included Vituscka’s texts without his authorization. Id. ¶¶ 3, 6. Vituscka has also agreed, by June 23, 2025, to produce his communications to which Bryan Freedman is a party for the time period of July 2024 through January 16, 2025."

Did you happen to catch that closing zinger? Vitscka will produce seven months of his communications with Bryan Freedman involving the time in question.

Sloane letter: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.286.0.pdf
Vituscka declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.286.1.pdf

Suck it, haterz.

BF’s a lawyer. The only thing he would’ve been texting Vituscka is questions about what Sloane and the other lively parties said to him. Vituscka’s also just ruined his own credibility because he told wayfarer one thing and now he’s changing his story. He may even open himself up to having the reporter privilege pierced.

[Anonymous]

It's funny that Blake is described as an imperfect victim, when I'd actually use that label to describe Justin. Because he wasn't the perfect director who ruled with an iron fist and didn't know how to manage a celeb with A-list ties, he deserved to be libeled in the press.

I do have a thought experiment I genuinely want to pose: if a woman's word is law, and we're supposed to believe women no matter what, how can a man prove his innocence? No, really, how will he be able to prove it? Because it feels like as long as someone's claimed she was sexually harassed, people will come up with all sorts of post-hoc justifications for why she's right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More good news for Lively's case just in:

Sloane and Vituscka have worked out an agreement whereby Vituscka has filed an declaration, stating, essentially, the following (as paraphrased by Sloane) that explains he got certain facts wrong in his article which he regrets, and which I believe basically absolves Sloane of liability for defamation; as a result Sloane is dropping her motion to compel against Vituscka:

"The Sloane Parties and Vituscka have reached an agreement wherein Vituscka furnished a sworn declaration stating, in relevant part, that 'Ms. Sloane never told me that Ms. Lively was sexually harassed or sexually assaulted by Justin Baldoni or anyone else.' Ex. A ¶ 5. The text messages appearing at paragraph 193 of the Wayfarer Parties’ Amended Complaint were therefore a 'mistake,' the truth of which the Wayfarer Parties never confirmed prior to filing their complaints that included Vituscka’s texts without his authorization. Id. ¶¶ 3, 6. Vituscka has also agreed, by June 23, 2025, to produce his communications to which Bryan Freedman is a party for the time period of July 2024 through January 16, 2025."

Did you happen to catch that closing zinger? Vitscka will produce seven months of his communications with Bryan Freedman involving the time in question.

Sloane letter: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.286.0.pdf
Vituscka declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.286.1.pdf

Suck it, haterz.

BF’s a lawyer. The only thing he would’ve been texting Vituscka is questions about what Sloane and the other lively parties said to him. Vituscka’s also just ruined his own credibility because he told wayfarer one thing and now he’s changing his story. He may even open himself up to having the reporter privilege pierced.

Let's just see, shall we? Baldoni hired Freedman in July/August right around when the crisis PR firm was hired, himself has some strong relationship with Jed Wallace, and given his rep as a lawyer adept at the public relations side of lawyering, probably moreso than the actual lawyering side of lawyering (as evidenced by his recent smackdowns). Let's just see what his communications here are, shall we? I don't think you'd see Gottlieb emailing/texting with someone like Vituscka, but apparently Freedman actually does.

Also noting that despite Freedman's involvement with the journalists who were out publishing stories on these people, it looks like Lively's PR rep Sloane kept her hands clean throughout all of this and wasn't sh!ttalking Baldoni with reporters. Whereas Baldoni's PR reps seemed to clearly be doing some things (I have been listening to Gavel Gavel, it's instructive), and possibly Freedman as well.

To the Baldoni supporter saying Sloane texting Vituscka shows she was just as slimy as Freedman, it's a whole different ballgame, since that's literally Sloane's job as a PR rep. Freedman's job is lawyering, but since he's texting journos also it seems like he is also functioning as a PR rep, perhaps. Should be interesting to see.

In less than 24 hours, we've had the NOW amicus, the Order granting the protective order against enforcing Wayfarer's subpoena on Jones' security company's privileged docs (with the Does subpoena footnote) smackdown, and this Vituscka affidavit suggesting Sloane might be out as a party if this holds up.

There is a new filing where Jed Wallace seeks a stay in discovery because he told Lively's attorneys things seemed to be dying down and asked for a stay on further ROGs/doc production, and they said let me think about it, and then turned around a day or two later and served Wallace with 98 doc requests and 15 more ROGs. So Wallace is looking for a stay until his MTD for lack of juristiction in NY is decided. I actually think the judge might tell the parties to go fish and try to work it out here in a meet and confer (depending on what Lively's response says) -- the problems with the discovery interpretation Wallace points out in his letter seems like it could be easily worked out via meet and confer. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.287.0.pdf

[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.

Very well said and spot on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it is so damning that Lively and her lawyers have many longstanding relationships with nonprofit advocacy groups for women, children, DV survivors, and other survivors of sexual violence. What horrible people.

I wonder where Know More, the org that Baldoni partnered with during IEWU, stands on the question of whether 47.1 should be declared unconstitutional, as Baldoni's lawyers are arguing.

Let’s be clear, this is not based on Lively’s long standing commitment to anything.

I mean, she didn’t even read the book, and rather than using the film as a platform for discussions about domestic violence, she wanted to talk about florals and girls nights.

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

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.

Extensively? Let’s see the clip.

Still waiting.

DP, but she talked about this eloquently off the cuff in Copenhagen. I note that when Flaa made fun of her for these remarks she carefully edited out all the audience applause and cut it to make it seem tone deaf. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CYJ-GFJmT7M

The part I refer to runs from about 4:50 to 7:20. Two minutes of straight, extemporaneous discussion.

And your toe tapping here is completely disingenuous. This clip has been discussed in this thread before as you well know (find it yourself, we are not your google servants!), and omg you waited a whole 20 minutes! People have lives and ish to do.

Two whole minutes it which she provides a few sentence plot summary. Neither extensive nor profound. Got anything actually substantive or no? I’m guessing no if this is what you posted.

This clip did precisely what it said on the tin. As PP said, it showed Lively speaking extensively "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 of sexual violence -- my identity is not 'victim'. I'm a whole person who has been through something difficult." That's exactly what Lively was saying in that clip I referenced, which Flaa cut apart and made fun of, and which you are reducing to "a few sentence plot summary" that you denigrate as "[n]either extensive nor profound."

I would love to hear you give a rapid fire two and a half minute speech on the matter you've been working on currently and make it sound half as good as what Lively said there. Not sure you'd get two rounds of applause from the crowd, frankly. You can say this isn't meaningful to survivors, but I disgree, and I call you out for putting your fingers in your ears and not really hearing it because your mind is made up. It's just more denigration of women who bring harassment claims, all the way down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I funny argument I see Baldoni supporters making on Reddit recently that these amicus briefs are "plants" because Lively's legal team is involved with some of these non-profits.

Alternatively: Lively's legal team is filled with people who have been deeply involved in supporting survivors of sexual violence and discrimination for a long time, and they chose to represent Lively and the organizations they are affiliated are choosing to back her with these briefs. You would think that would give people pause, that maybe there is more to Lively's allegations than a lot of people seem willing to believe.

Usually people who have spent years supporting and representing real survivors would not be willing to throw that away on someone lying about harassment to try and "steal a movie." Do you just think all these people are stupid? Lively has just tricked dozens of highly educated and successful lawyers and survivor advocates?

I've seen her acting -- she's not that good!

And yet such organizations didn’t care enough to file an amicus in a timely manner and instead waited months and just happened to file after a particular low point for Blake. And both amicus briefs filed by an organization just happened to have at least one board member with a tie to Blake.

Alternatively, these organizations decided to get involved when Baldoni et al argued in response to Blake's MTD asserting 47.1 that the law was unconstitutional, and filed amicus briefs on the issue when those briefs (which could be seen as critical groundwork for the survival of 47.1 at the appellate level should the issue get pled up) as quickly as they feasibly could.

But sure, I'm sure it's more likely that Lively's lawyers demanded that these well-established survivor advocacy organizations write amicus briefs to help Blake weather some negative headlines about her friendship with Taylor Swift, and the lawyers and advocates at these orgs (who have dedicated their careers to helping survivors) decided "hmmm, okay, sounds good."

Some of y'all have truly lost it. The amicus briefs aren't even about Blake. They are about defending 47.1 against Freedman's argument that it's not constitutional. He invited these briefs by challenging the law's constitutionality in his own briefs. OF COURSE the people who wrote and advocated for the law's existence are going to fight back on that point.

I totally missed your timeliness point here the first time I read your comment, but this is a great observation. Of course the amicus briefs weren't needed when the MTDs were first filed, because it wasn't until Freedman's oppositions that challenged the constitutionality of 47.1 that the issues being explored in the amicus briefs even came up.

This was a great comment and I enjoy your writing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More good news for Lively's case just in:

Sloane and Vituscka have worked out an agreement whereby Vituscka has filed an declaration, stating, essentially, the following (as paraphrased by Sloane) that explains he got certain facts wrong in his article which he regrets, and which I believe basically absolves Sloane of liability for defamation; as a result Sloane is dropping her motion to compel against Vituscka:

"The Sloane Parties and Vituscka have reached an agreement wherein Vituscka furnished a sworn declaration stating, in relevant part, that 'Ms. Sloane never told me that Ms. Lively was sexually harassed or sexually assaulted by Justin Baldoni or anyone else.' Ex. A ¶ 5. The text messages appearing at paragraph 193 of the Wayfarer Parties’ Amended Complaint were therefore a 'mistake,' the truth of which the Wayfarer Parties never confirmed prior to filing their complaints that included Vituscka’s texts without his authorization. Id. ¶¶ 3, 6. Vituscka has also agreed, by June 23, 2025, to produce his communications to which Bryan Freedman is a party for the time period of July 2024 through January 16, 2025."

Did you happen to catch that closing zinger? Vitscka will produce seven months of his communications with Bryan Freedman involving the time in question.

Sloane letter: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.286.0.pdf
Vituscka declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.286.1.pdf

Suck it, haterz.

BF’s a lawyer. The only thing he would’ve been texting Vituscka is questions about what Sloane and the other lively parties said to him. Vituscka’s also just ruined his own credibility because he told wayfarer one thing and now he’s changing his story. He may even open himself up to having the reporter privilege pierced.

We're talking about Bryan Freedman, right? Of course he leaks stuff to tabloids all the time. He has TMZ, DM, and Page Six on speed dial. And no, not just to talk about legal evidence they might be able to provide. He is very skilled at using tabloid press to his clients' benefit.

I doubt the texts between Vituscka and Freedman will yield anything legally useful, but I do assume they'll be a bunch of juicy, juicy leaks and gossip and blind quotes Freedman wanted to have placed in DM articles.

[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.

Very well said and spot on.

A second Baldoni supporter endorsing the idea that women who support the female accuser here must themselves be "low-iq, emotionally led, and irrational" as well as, per the last line, vindictive for the slights they have experienced from their "exes and other men." Ladies, ladies, normally we reserve such language for the accusers themselves! How enterprising to branch it out like this!

[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.

Very well said and spot on.

A second Baldoni supporter endorsing the idea that women who support the female accuser here must themselves be "low-iq, emotionally led, and irrational" as well as, per the last line, vindictive for the slights they have experienced from their "exes and other men." Ladies, ladies, normally we reserve such language for the accusers themselves! How enterprising to branch it out like this!

You need intensive therapy. I wish you well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's funny that Blake is described as an imperfect victim, when I'd actually use that label to describe Justin. Because he wasn't the perfect director who ruled with an iron fist and didn't know how to manage a celeb with A-list ties, he deserved to be libeled in the press.

I do have a thought experiment I genuinely want to pose: if a woman's word is law, and we're supposed to believe women no matter what, how can a man prove his innocence? No, really, how will he be able to prove it? Because it feels like as long as someone's claimed she was sexually harassed, people will come up with all sorts of post-hoc justifications for why she's right.

She will ignore this question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Very well said and spot on.

A second Baldoni supporter endorsing the idea that women who support the female accuser here must themselves be "low-iq, emotionally led, and irrational" as well as, per the last line, vindictive for the slights they have experienced from their "exes and other men." Ladies, ladies, normally we reserve such language for the accusers themselves! How enterprising to branch it out like this!

You need intensive therapy. I wish you well.

Name the lie!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny that Blake is described as an imperfect victim, when I'd actually use that label to describe Justin. Because he wasn't the perfect director who ruled with an iron fist and didn't know how to manage a celeb with A-list ties, he deserved to be libeled in the press.

I do have a thought experiment I genuinely want to pose: if a woman's word is law, and we're supposed to believe women no matter what, how can a man prove his innocence? No, really, how will he be able to prove it? Because it feels like as long as someone's claimed she was sexually harassed, people will come up with all sorts of post-hoc justifications for why she's right.

She will ignore this question.

Oh, whatever. Look, you can choose not to believe certain women, after you have read up on the facts and decided that the odds really favor someone else here. I don't think anyone on this ridiculous thread is actually blaming any Baldoni supporter for believing Baldoni overall rather than Lively. You can choose a side and defend it.

What I absolutely do blame you for is the ridiculous misogynist tropes that nearly all of you have fallen into in defending Mssr. Baldoni from the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad hag Blake Lively. Since the first day I've been in these threads, people could not insult her hard enough. Insinuating she's mentally unstable or has various undiagnosed/diagnosed conditions, saying she was really in love with Baldoni and had been scorned and that's why she claimed SH, whatever terrible things you could dig up from her past that had nothing to do with the case, etc. etc. etc. The point was to hurt her credibility above all so that your hero Baldoni would be protected, and it was done in the most predictable misogynist ways.

If you really are just asking "how can a man prove his innocence," I suggest that he not begin with a $400 million defamation suit against the woman he promised not to retaliate against. This is textbook retaliation. Freedman designed this to bully her, and you couldn't be happier about it. I think it was a dick move. Otherwise, I would say fight the case with real lawyers and not with a PR lawyer who just wants to hurt your opponent so they settle. Why do you need to hurt Lively so much instead of letting the judge and/or jury weigh out the legal merits of both of your claims? The way Freedman is fighting this case seems more like bullying than lawyering, and it reminds me of Weinstein on the phone with Twohey et al in the film re the NYT story.

Prove your innocence by showing the truth, but not using misogynist language to describe Lively. Stop going low. Stop feeding the hate machine that grinds up women accusers and spits them out as mincemeat. Tell your fans to stop doing the same. The language you guys have been using on Lively here has been so offensive for so long that I mostly don't even ask for it to be removed anymore. Just tell the truth and don't insult her as much and it would be fine.