Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT

Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

◄ 1 2 3 ... 806 807 808 ... 1005 1006 1007 ► Go

Go to page...

06/09/2025 13:18

Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

Anonymous

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

DP. This. I posted a few days ago about having worked around DV issues and orgs like Sanctuary for Families, and it’s well known that overboard and vague laws to try to help victims can often back fire. That’s why I was surprised they filed an amicus here as this is not a great case for women/ victims.

I am a Baldoni supporter and did a fair amount of pro bono work on domestic violence issues. Very common for men to come in seeking a protective order in retaliation for a woman starting the process against them. I think in nearly all of these cases, the allegations made by the men were false. Further, I had a case where the father made up abuse against the children charges against the wife when she was thinking of leaving him. It took two layers of appeals to overturn. 47.1 would seemingly apply to defamation claims brought by women in such circumstances.

I also work in this area. Protective orders are handed out way too easily. That’s the fix. Ensure there is a prompt fact finding on these motions

My second example has zero to do with protective orders. The broader point is that women can also be the victim of fabricated allegations and in fact, fabricated allegations are often tools used by the abuser. 47.1 ignores that, and would make it more difficult for women in such situations to bring defamation suits.

Are these protective orders brought in a family court context? Because if they are, I can assure you no judge outside of that system will want to touch them. Eg they won’t want a defamation claim based on allegations in this context. If you've ever worked in Family court, it is full of lies and exaggerations back and forth and everyone knows that. And although as a woman I tend to support women, I know that women also misuse protective orders in family and custody cases as well. So no, I don’t support the CA law because it could be too easily misused against both men and women, and if the defamation claim is frivolous, there are other means to address it expediently.

You must have missed the “zero to do with protective orders” in my first sentence

Pp understood. But you brought up an area I’m familiar with. Protective orders in family cases. It is fairly rare for them to be taken outside of the family court context, so I was confused by your reference to multiple appeals etc.

Here’s your original text

I am a Baldoni supporter and did a fair amount of pro bono work on domestic violence issues. Very common for men to come in seeking a protective order in retaliation for a woman starting the process against them. I think in nearly all of these cases, the allegations made by the men were false. Further, I had a case where the father made up abuse against the children charges against the wife when she was thinking of leaving him. It took two layers of appeals to overturn. 47.1 would seemingly apply to defamation claims brought by women in such circumstances.

My second example was from a dss finding, not a protective order.

The abuse would have had to be substantiated by 3rd parties. These social workers know how often false or exaggerated child abuse and child neglect allegations are made in cases where the parents are separating. It’s very common and they usually open and close these cases expediently.

But again, the initial point was that things like protective orders in family court that were meant to protect women and victims can be overused and abused. So we should caution against running to support new laws that interfere with due process rights without thinking through the issues carefully.

That isn’t what occurred was why the dss decision was ultimately reversed. The father pressured one of the children to lie, which was later revealed via sworn testimony. All secondary reporters contacted by dss, including teachers and pediatrician reported no signs of abuse even during the initial investigation. It took two years to get to the right result.

A kid saying a parent abused them is pretty compelling, although social workers are pretty good at sniffing out parental influence, especially when there is a contested marital separation at issue. They know there are often lots of false allegations, and a sizable percentage of ACS calls are from the other parent during a custody battle.

But can you imagine a world where a kid clearly said a parent was abusing them, was ignored and then serious harm occurred? Look, very often in these cases there is a gray area. Sounds like this might be one of them, but who knows? Either way, protecting the child seems like a decent outcome to me.