Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Hah, no, just watched the clip and it doesn't mention Sloane. It's an anecdote where Lively is doing press for the "Age of Adeline" movie and it's been arranged that they can only ask pre-ordained questions from her rep and one of them is "What do you like about the 1930s?" So she asks the question and Blake is all "Ugh, did you even see the movie? It takes place over 3 decades..." and stomps off. Too funny. Now it makes me wonder if that time she was complaining "would you ask a man about the costumes?" if that wasn't actually a question from her own reps! |
Anonymous
| Guys, be careful when sharing TikTok links and clicking them. It shows me the account of the person who posted the link. If you’re using a burner (like I do), then carry on! |
Anonymous
Good tip! |
Anonymous
There is a way to stop this by changing your privacy settings in the app; there are guides on how to do this if you google it. |
Anonymous
| New low - Blake and Ryan who went on and on about their privacy as adults either had their attorneys or didn’t stop their attorneys from including a picture of Perez Hilton’s 3 children (all under 13) in a court filing. |
Anonymous
I don't like Blake but refuse to cheer for Perez. He is and has always been revolting. I tried to watch one of his videos about this subject but I just can't. Nails on a chalkboard. I view him as a parasite and don't really care what happens to him here. I don't think he is working for Wayfarer and doubt going after him will lead to a legal win for Blake, but I'd be fine with him getting knocked around by the court for all his behavior because he's really awful. Actually, shutting up Perez Hilton might make me respect Lively a little. |
Anonymous
Knowing certain little about him, just the little have now read and seen, there is NO way would ever subpoena him unless the beyond last resort- is this where BL team is? Does anyone know how to see how many clicks a website gets? I have to believe he is trending at least 2-3x more now that BL keeps giving him more and more to post. Maybe it is all smoke and mirrors and same way RR invested in gin and mint mobile, maybe RR invested in Perez and this is way to up his #s! |
Anonymous
wtf? What was their justification? |
Anonymous
| Just curious, has Justin gone after other anti-Baldoni content creators? |
Anonymous
DP. I read their motion, and some of it is really silly... that basically Perez posts relentlessly anti-Blake with dramatic headlines, and he's been a Freedman client, and he happens to be repeating the main Freedman talking points constantly (essentially, that Blake is lying and Baldoni is a good person who is telling the truth, which are pretty mainstream opinions). They said something similar at the July 30 hearing about Candace Owens and Megyn Kelly. But this isn't enough, IMO. However, Candace and Perez were on the list of Content Creators that TAG said disseminated stuff on their behalf. There's only 4 on the list, so it's not like it's just a list of who got email blasts promoting the movie. Lively's attorneys would really be remiss not to subpoena those 4 people for those communications. They are asking about their agreements and comms with Wayfarer and their counsel, not bank account info and that stuff. That was insane to try to get that stuff from anonymous content creators with no links to Wayfarer, but the Perez one seems quite reasonably targeted at relevant evidence. |
Anonymous
I don’t think so. It’s funny how much Team Blake complains about the CCs on his side, while they champion a creepy man named expatriarch with crazy eyes |
Anonymous
| Thoughts on why Blake didn’t go after Megyn Kelly? Is she too established? |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
|
Ugh, the above formatting didn’t turn out right. I was responding to the post that said TAG says Candace and Perez disseminated info on their behalf.
Did they really admit that? |
Anonymous
Disseminating was my paraphrase. Sorry for any confusion. The actual wording is a little different but I still feel it's enough to subpoena him. I went back to the docket, and this is the actual language from the interrogatory discussed in their motion. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.564.0.pdf On March 14, 2025, Ms. Lively served TAG with interrogatories, including ones that asked TAG to identify: • “all Content Creators with whom You have communicated in any manner, concerning Ms. Lively, Mr. Reynolds, the CRD Complaint, the Actions, the Lively/Reynolds Companies, or the Digital Campaign from May 1, 2024, to present” (Interrogatory No. 5); and • “all reporters and news or media outlets of any kind with whom You have communicated, directly or indirectly, in any manner, concerning Ms. Lively, Mr. Reynolds, the CRD Complaint, the Actions, or the Lively/Reynolds Companies from May 1, 2024, to present” (Interrogatory No. 6). ECF No. 294, Ex. 6.13 The Court compelled TAG inter alia to answer both interrogatories— ncluding through the present—subject to defining Content Creators to “mean ‘any individual or entity who seeds, generates, creates, or influences Social Media content or provides related digital or social media services directly or indirectly at the request of, or on behalf of, any Wayfarer Party or their agents or affiliates.’” ECF No. 355, at 3-4. On June 25, 2025, TAG served supplemental responses to the interrogatories, including to identify Mr. Hilton as one of four Content Creators who seeded, generated, created, or influenced social media content or provided related digital or social media services directly or indirectly at the request of, or on behalf of, any Wayfarer Party or their agents or affiliates. ECF No. 552, Ex.14. 554, Ex.14. |