Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

I just heard a random podcast- Josh Levs - They Stand Corrected- debating this claim in Justin’s lawsuit. He had a Fordham Law professor on who said the false light claim is a significant risk for the NYT, in addition to his defamation claims, including defamation by implication. His daughter, also a lawyer, said it will be a huge case.

Not sure I follow. Any of the lawyers on look into this issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just heard a random podcast- Josh Levs - They Stand Corrected- debating this claim in Justin’s lawsuit. He had a Fordham Law professor on who said the false light claim is a significant risk for the NYT, in addition to his defamation claims, including defamation by implication. His daughter, also a lawyer, said it will be a huge case.

Not sure I follow. Any of the lawyers on look into this issue?

I'm not following your post. Are you saying the the NYT published something that Baldoni is saying is defamation? And by "his daughter" who are you referring to.

[Anonymous]

If defamation is difficult to prove for a public figure then false light must be nearly impossible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If defamation is difficult to prove for a public figure then false light must be nearly impossible.

I am not familiar with this case but I view it as a dependent claim. If he can prove defamation, he can probably prove false light. But if he can't prove defamation, I think it would be hard to impossible to prove false light. But maybe there is something unique about this case, I don't know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just heard a random podcast- Josh Levs - They Stand Corrected- debating this claim in Justin’s lawsuit. He had a Fordham Law professor on who said the false light claim is a significant risk for the NYT, in addition to his defamation claims, including defamation by implication. His daughter, also a lawyer, said it will be a huge case.

Not sure I follow. Any of the lawyers on look into this issue?

Why did they say they false light claim is significant? I Will definitely have a listen to the podcast. Anyone suing a big outlet like NYT is going to be a big case in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just heard a random podcast- Josh Levs - They Stand Corrected- debating this claim in Justin’s lawsuit. He had a Fordham Law professor on who said the false light claim is a significant risk for the NYT, in addition to his defamation claims, including defamation by implication. His daughter, also a lawyer, said it will be a huge case.

Not sure I follow. Any of the lawyers on look into this issue?

I'm not following your post. Are you saying the the NYT published something that Baldoni is saying is defamation? And by "his daughter" who are you referring to.

Yeah, there was a long discussions of the defamation case in the now locked down Blake Lively thread.

His daughter- the law professor- is also a lawyer. I think Baldonis kids are little, no?

[Anonymous]

^ the law professor I reference obviously

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If defamation is difficult to prove for a public figure then false light must be nearly impossible.

I am not familiar with this case but I view it as a dependent claim. If he can prove defamation, he can probably prove false light. But if he can't prove defamation, I think it would be hard to impossible to prove false light. But maybe there is something unique about this case, I don't know.

The law prof sort of said the opposite. That Baldoni may be able to prove false light even if his defamation claims fail, which they might because of the fair report privilege.

I personally think the defamation by implication is the most compelling argument

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If defamation is difficult to prove for a public figure then false light must be nearly impossible.

What is your analysis? Also it’s not like anyone has been determined to be a public figure yet in that case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If defamation is difficult to prove for a public figure then false light must be nearly impossible.

What is your analysis? Also it’s not like anyone has been determined to be a public figure yet in that case

Don't see how we can analyze a post that essentially says that some random law professor on a podcast said this vague thing, and his daughter, a lawyer, appeared to agree, with no link or summary (not that I would listen to a long podcast). OP should articulate the arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If defamation is difficult to prove for a public figure then false light must be nearly impossible.

What is your analysis? Also it’s not like anyone has been determined to be a public figure yet in that case

Don't see how we can analyze a post that essentially says that some random law professor on a podcast said this vague thing, and his daughter, a lawyer, appeared to agree, with no link or summary (not that I would listen to a long podcast). OP should articulate the arguments.

No, if you’re PP, I’m asking for YOUR analysis on why you think defamation would be hard to prove, and why false light would ‘nearly impossible’. You implied you understood this case and had determined it wasn’t a strong one.

Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If defamation is difficult to prove for a public figure then false light must be nearly impossible.

I am not familiar with this case but I view it as a dependent claim. If he can prove defamation, he can probably prove false light. But if he can't prove defamation, I think it would be hard to impossible to prove false light. But maybe there is something unique about this case, I don't know.

The law prof sort of said the opposite. That Baldoni may be able to prove false light even if his defamation claims fail, which they might because of the fair report privilege.

I personally think the defamation by implication is the most compelling argument

Me too. NYT supposedly saw all the text messages and chose certain ones. Now the content was still unsavory but didn't portray the whole picture at all.

[Anonymous]

Which side put out the 6+ minute voicemail of Justin to Blake today? If Justin does that mean gag order denied and his website is next?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which side put out the 6+ minute voicemail of Justin to Blake today? If Justin does that mean gag order denied and his website is next?

Hmm I don’t know, but I assume his side. That RR and TS stuff does not make her look good

[Anonymous]

Link to voicemail?