Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The retaliation claim is weak because Justin’s defense is that he was not acting in retaliation for sexual harassment, but because of Blake’s campaign against him. It’s a question for the jury and that is bad for Blake. Her lack of likability will hurt her just as much as the actual facts.

This. And countering PR with PR is unlikely to be retaliation in any kind of EEO context. The PR was to support It Ends With Us as much as Baldoni. The troll who was all caps shrieking accusations at how horrible everyone here is - and yes I am getting to a germane point - also claimed to be living on TikTok and “seeing” this campaign develop. She came to this late. That ignores essential realities about Lively’s press for years and years and years. I’m the woman who wanted to talk intersectional issues and who has known and seen for years that Lively attracts bad press not because of her reproductive system but because she is an unusually aggressive, unusually tone-deaf interviewee for someone in her position. Leighton Meester played the spicy character in Gossip Girl and has opposite press. The cast of Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants largely does not have her press problems.

Her likability was the goddamned ground floor for her spurious claims. And large swaths of the population do not like her and are absolutely entitled to feel that way and to vote with their wallets against supporting her hair and drink brands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, it sounds like Jed Wallace is one of the defendant(s) who's going to be added to Lively's lawsuit:

https://deadline.com/2025/02/blake-lively-trial-strategy-justin-baldoni-1236278393/

So BL allegation is that Wallace/his company was hired by JB and others she is suing to do the social media takedown? Yes I read article linked, but honestly got confused by how written since don’t know all the names to know who is on which side.

Yes. Wallace is known for his unmoral pr tactics.

It's really unclear to me what's immoral and particularly, illegal here. It seems sort of sleezy and dirty to use bots but...is that sanctionable? At the end of the day, even that effort would not have been successful if they didn't have the underlying footage of Lively being absolutely heinous on multiple occasions. To me, whatever they did to boost those views is sort of secondary to the fact that the worst offense is those tapes were available in the first place.

Not to detract from your underlying point, but I think Jed's team may have planted stories, not used bots. TAG denies the use of bots, but I don't see anything Justin's complaint denying the planting of negative stories by real humans. denial of bots, pg. 148: https://thelawsuitinfo.com/downloads/amended-complaint.pdf

This is the immoral part i was talking about. A lot of entertainment PR agents came out and said using of bots is looked down upon ans nit something normally done. Thats what Jed's known for in the PR industry. You can find plenty of reddit posts about it, lots not dealing with this Blake situation too.

Who cares if it is immoral? That doesn’t make it actionable.

Ding ding ding ding ding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought that after the trailer incident etc when she came to them with the list of 17 issues, Baldoni and his production company signed an agreement not to retaliate against her for raising those issues. So isn't that agreement what the retaliation claim is based on, and so any retaliation on his part after that would be in violation of that agreement he made?

No, next question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retaliation claim is weak because Justin’s defense is that he was not acting in retaliation for sexual harassment, but because of Blake’s campaign against him. It’s a question for the jury and that is bad for Blake. Her lack of likability will hurt her just as much as the actual facts.

This. And countering PR with PR is unlikely to be retaliation in any kind of EEO context. The PR was to support It Ends With Us as much as Baldoni. The troll who was all caps shrieking accusations at how horrible everyone here is - and yes I am getting to a germane point - also claimed to be living on TikTok and “seeing” this campaign develop. She came to this late. That ignores essential realities about Lively’s press for years and years and years. I’m the woman who wanted to talk intersectional issues and who has known and seen for years that Lively attracts bad press not because of her reproductive system but because she is an unusually aggressive, unusually tone-deaf interviewee for someone in her position. Leighton Meester played the spicy character in Gossip Girl and has opposite press. The cast of Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants largely does not have her press problems.

Her likability was the goddamned ground floor for her spurious claims. And large swaths of the population do not like her and are absolutely entitled to feel that way and to vote with their wallets against supporting her hair and drink brands.

Someone needs to send Freedman links to Lipstick Alley and Oh No They Didnt, because posters have been talking about how awful Blake Lively is for years, and that is absolutely relevant to the case as you've outlined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retaliation claim is weak because Justin’s defense is that he was not acting in retaliation for sexual harassment, but because of Blake’s campaign against him. It’s a question for the jury and that is bad for Blake. Her lack of likability will hurt her just as much as the actual facts.

This. And countering PR with PR is unlikely to be retaliation in any kind of EEO context. The PR was to support It Ends With Us as much as Baldoni. The troll who was all caps shrieking accusations at how horrible everyone here is - and yes I am getting to a germane point - also claimed to be living on TikTok and “seeing” this campaign develop. She came to this late. That ignores essential realities about Lively’s press for years and years and years. I’m the woman who wanted to talk intersectional issues and who has known and seen for years that Lively attracts bad press not because of her reproductive system but because she is an unusually aggressive, unusually tone-deaf interviewee for someone in her position. Leighton Meester played the spicy character in Gossip Girl and has opposite press. The cast of Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants largely does not have her press problems.

Her likability was the goddamned ground floor for her spurious claims. And large swaths of the population do not like her and are absolutely entitled to feel that way and to vote with their wallets against supporting her hair and drink brands.

Someone needs to send Freedman links to Lipstick Alley and Oh No They Didnt, because posters have been talking about how awful Blake Lively is for years, and that is absolutely relevant to the case as you've outlined.

PP: https://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/91682146.html

People have been chomping at the bit for her downfall for over a decade now.

[Anonymous]

Could there be a sort of split in this case: Blake wins damages for retaliation, Justin wins for defamation?

[Anonymous]

I also have some issues related to Lively’s conduct after the movie wrapped. I might be getting this wrong, but I read that after Wayfarer signed Lively’s stipulations, things improved from her viewpoint. (I think that might have been stated in the NYT podcast, actually). So then what was her justification for all the other moves (not wanting his name on the poster, not allowing him to attend the premier, etc.)? That feels like a petty response for behavior that had been addressed by the studio. I guess my point is none of this makes much sense to me as a response to SH. His name and a picture of his face can’t make her feel unsafe. Maybe attending an event with him could—but even that’s a stretch given the nature of her claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retaliation claim is weak because Justin’s defense is that he was not acting in retaliation for sexual harassment, but because of Blake’s campaign against him. It’s a question for the jury and that is bad for Blake. Her lack of likability will hurt her just as much as the actual facts.

This. And countering PR with PR is unlikely to be retaliation in any kind of EEO context. The PR was to support It Ends With Us as much as Baldoni. The troll who was all caps shrieking accusations at how horrible everyone here is - and yes I am getting to a germane point - also claimed to be living on TikTok and “seeing” this campaign develop. She came to this late. That ignores essential realities about Lively’s press for years and years and years. I’m the woman who wanted to talk intersectional issues and who has known and seen for years that Lively attracts bad press not because of her reproductive system but because she is an unusually aggressive, unusually tone-deaf interviewee for someone in her position. Leighton Meester played the spicy character in Gossip Girl and has opposite press. The cast of Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants largely does not have her press problems.

Her likability was the goddamned ground floor for her spurious claims. And large swaths of the population do not like her and are absolutely entitled to feel that way and to vote with their wallets against supporting her hair and drink brands.

Someone needs to send Freedman links to Lipstick Alley and Oh No They Didnt, because posters have been talking about how awful Blake Lively is for years, and that is absolutely relevant to the case as you've outlined.

PP: https://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/91682146.html

People have been chomping at the bit for her downfall for over a decade now.

Thank you for posting. I remember this well. That copy with those insipid fashions is racist. Racist. And Lively continues this unabated: she never directly addressed having a plantation wedding with reception facilities on Slave Lane instead of another part of the plantation. She used the tacky ugly fashions of Magnolia Lane, which has a live link TODAY with the white blonde models wearing the clothes in a video titled “On The Plantation” — she wears THOSE clothes AS Lily Bloom in It Ends With Us AND talked up Magnolia Lane in interviews for the film, promoting the line. This is after duh she took over wardrobe from Baldoni and exploded the fashion budget. She chose to outfit a character described insipidly as very young and very beautiful like a dumpy color-blind middle-aged clown and did promo for those very clothes.

There are layers to her bad publicity and as I have firmly believed for years that she is an absolute racist, I do not think people demurring - being very demure - from buying her crap and asking why the character looked fug has one goddamned thing to do with a conspiracy to make her look bad. She did it for free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retaliation claim is weak because Justin’s defense is that he was not acting in retaliation for sexual harassment, but because of Blake’s campaign against him. It’s a question for the jury and that is bad for Blake. Her lack of likability will hurt her just as much as the actual facts.

This. And countering PR with PR is unlikely to be retaliation in any kind of EEO context. The PR was to support It Ends With Us as much as Baldoni. The troll who was all caps shrieking accusations at how horrible everyone here is - and yes I am getting to a germane point - also claimed to be living on TikTok and “seeing” this campaign develop. She came to this late. That ignores essential realities about Lively’s press for years and years and years. I’m the woman who wanted to talk intersectional issues and who has known and seen for years that Lively attracts bad press not because of her reproductive system but because she is an unusually aggressive, unusually tone-deaf interviewee for someone in her position. Leighton Meester played the spicy character in Gossip Girl and has opposite press. The cast of Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants largely does not have her press problems.

Her likability was the goddamned ground floor for her spurious claims. And large swaths of the population do not like her and are absolutely entitled to feel that way and to vote with their wallets against supporting her hair and drink brands.

Hi, thanks for referencing me. I did not say I 'lived' on tiktok, I thought lawyers were supposed to be precise? I said I was on tiktok at the time witnessed what appeared to be in an inorganic smear campaign develop. And saw the internet turn its woman hating gaze on its next victim.

I didn't come that late I just took a break, I'm the poster who said on page 14 this would turn into a sh*tshow. I also haven't reporting a single GD one of your crappy posts. I just respond to you calling you sexist to your (digital) face. I'm not a troll, and I never called you a troll. Sorry my opinion is inconvenient for you.

I don't think a woman's prior behavior dictates whether she can or cannot be SA/Hed. Because that is misogyny to believe that. I said I didn't particularly like her. I even said I liked Leighton Meester better! It doesn't mean I think she is then asking to be SH-ed. I don't believe her being annoying entitles men to treat her poorly or for her to be subjected to poor working conditions. No one is saying you have to buy her hair and drink brands. What I'm saying is you are misogynistic and sexist if you decide that it is specifically her likeability that causes you to disbelieve her. Because that is not factual and its not evidentiary. And if you claim to be lawyer and pitch this well I hope I never hire you that's for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retaliation claim is weak because Justin’s defense is that he was not acting in retaliation for sexual harassment, but because of Blake’s campaign against him. It’s a question for the jury and that is bad for Blake. Her lack of likability will hurt her just as much as the actual facts.

This. And countering PR with PR is unlikely to be retaliation in any kind of EEO context. The PR was to support It Ends With Us as much as Baldoni. The troll who was all caps shrieking accusations at how horrible everyone here is - and yes I am getting to a germane point - also claimed to be living on TikTok and “seeing” this campaign develop. She came to this late. That ignores essential realities about Lively’s press for years and years and years. I’m the woman who wanted to talk intersectional issues and who has known and seen for years that Lively attracts bad press not because of her reproductive system but because she is an unusually aggressive, unusually tone-deaf interviewee for someone in her position. Leighton Meester played the spicy character in Gossip Girl and has opposite press. The cast of Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants largely does not have her press problems.

Her likability was the goddamned ground floor for her spurious claims. And large swaths of the population do not like her and are absolutely entitled to feel that way and to vote with their wallets against supporting her hair and drink brands.

Hi, thanks for referencing me. I did not say I 'lived' on tiktok, I thought lawyers were supposed to be precise? I said I was on tiktok at the time witnessed what appeared to be in an inorganic smear campaign develop. And saw the internet turn its woman hating gaze on its next victim.

I didn't come that late I just took a break, I'm the poster who said on page 14 this would turn into a sh*tshow. I also haven't reporting a single GD one of your crappy posts. I just respond to you calling you sexist to your (digital) face. I'm not a troll, and I never called you a troll. Sorry my opinion is inconvenient for you.

I don't think a woman's prior behavior dictates whether she can or cannot be SA/Hed. Because that is misogyny to believe that. I said I didn't particularly like her. I even said I liked Leighton Meester better! It doesn't mean I think she is then asking to be SH-ed. I don't believe her being annoying entitles men to treat her poorly or for her to be subjected to poor working conditions. No one is saying you have to buy her hair and drink brands. What I'm saying is you are misogynistic and sexist if you decide that it is specifically her likeability that causes you to disbelieve her. Because that is not factual and its not evidentiary. And if you claim to be lawyer and pitch this well I hope I never hire you that's for sure.

Dp I can’t go through this point by point to explain how wrong you are right now but no one is saying they disbelieve her SH claims because of the bad press. We’re all saying we disbelieve the retaliation aspect because of the bad press that had already been swirling around her. You are deliberately twisting things.

[Anonymous]

It sounds like Blake Lively wanted to play Blake Lively, not "Lily Bloom," in this movie and that's where a lot of her (IMO warped) perceptions arise from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like Blake Lively wanted to play Blake Lively, not "Lily Bloom," in this movie and that's where a lot of her (IMO warped) perceptions arise from.

+ 1. And the fashions she insisted upon and used to bring the character to life are relevant because the pap shots yielded a lot of snark that angered her. And Baldoni and production were trying to create a movie and images that sell! She did this to herself on every level. It’s really mind-blowing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retaliation claim is weak because Justin’s defense is that he was not acting in retaliation for sexual harassment, but because of Blake’s campaign against him. It’s a question for the jury and that is bad for Blake. Her lack of likability will hurt her just as much as the actual facts.

This. And countering PR with PR is unlikely to be retaliation in any kind of EEO context. The PR was to support It Ends With Us as much as Baldoni. The troll who was all caps shrieking accusations at how horrible everyone here is - and yes I am getting to a germane point - also claimed to be living on TikTok and “seeing” this campaign develop. She came to this late. That ignores essential realities about Lively’s press for years and years and years. I’m the woman who wanted to talk intersectional issues and who has known and seen for years that Lively attracts bad press not because of her reproductive system but because she is an unusually aggressive, unusually tone-deaf interviewee for someone in her position. Leighton Meester played the spicy character in Gossip Girl and has opposite press. The cast of Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants largely does not have her press problems.

Her likability was the goddamned ground floor for her spurious claims. And large swaths of the population do not like her and are absolutely entitled to feel that way and to vote with their wallets against supporting her hair and drink brands.

Someone needs to send Freedman links to Lipstick Alley and Oh No They Didnt, because posters have been talking about how awful Blake Lively is for years, and that is absolutely relevant to the case as you've outlined.

PP: https://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/91682146.html

People have been chomping at the bit for her downfall for over a decade now.

Owens had a good take on this: To paraphrase, these celebs are such ego maniacs and so paranoid they truly can’t grasp the masses simply not liking them and their inability to browbeat and use PR to force the masses to like them. It MUST be a conspiracy, there MUST be people plotting against them. They are freakin’ kooks. Low watt kooks at that. Ryan nor Blake have any higher education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could there be a sort of split in this case: Blake wins damages for retaliation, Justin wins for defamation?

Unlikely she wins for retaliation for all the reasons set forth by multiple posters over the past two or three pages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retaliation claim is weak because Justin’s defense is that he was not acting in retaliation for sexual harassment, but because of Blake’s campaign against him. It’s a question for the jury and that is bad for Blake. Her lack of likability will hurt her just as much as the actual facts.

This. And countering PR with PR is unlikely to be retaliation in any kind of EEO context. The PR was to support It Ends With Us as much as Baldoni. The troll who was all caps shrieking accusations at how horrible everyone here is - and yes I am getting to a germane point - also claimed to be living on TikTok and “seeing” this campaign develop. She came to this late. That ignores essential realities about Lively’s press for years and years and years. I’m the woman who wanted to talk intersectional issues and who has known and seen for years that Lively attracts bad press not because of her reproductive system but because she is an unusually aggressive, unusually tone-deaf interviewee for someone in her position. Leighton Meester played the spicy character in Gossip Girl and has opposite press. The cast of Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants largely does not have her press problems.

Her likability was the goddamned ground floor for her spurious claims. And large swaths of the population do not like her and are absolutely entitled to feel that way and to vote with their wallets against supporting her hair and drink brands.

Someone needs to send Freedman links to Lipstick Alley and Oh No They Didnt, because posters have been talking about how awful Blake Lively is for years, and that is absolutely relevant to the case as you've outlined.

PP: https://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/91682146.html

People have been chomping at the bit for her downfall for over a decade now.

Owens had a good take on this: To paraphrase, these celebs are such ego maniacs and so paranoid they truly can’t grasp the masses simply not liking them and their inability to browbeat and use PR to force the masses to like them. It MUST be a conspiracy, there MUST be people plotting against them. They are freakin’ kooks. Low watt kooks at that. Ryan nor Blake have any higher education.

Part of the issue is the incredibly privileged life Blake has led. From a well off family and a star at a very young age. Then she marries another star that makes some good investments and becomes a billionaire. She doesn't seem to be able to see beyond this, and has become accustomed to having her every demand met, no matter how silly. Same for her husband. They have no perspective.