Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Would really like to see the “three sources” because the Cambridge dictionary similarly defines smear campaign as “a planned attempt to harm the reputation of a person or company by telling lies about them.”

[Anonymous]

I’m going with the Cambridge and Oxford Dictionaries over Wikipedia.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even an example of such an article.

Why is falsehood a requirement for proving retaliation? Asking honestly, because I don’t think that is a legal requirement.

Because she chose to allege the retaliation took the form of a smear campaign. She doesn’t allege “normal” retaliation like demotion, lower salary, lose of responsibilities because they didn’t occur.

Where exactly does she use the term smear campaign?

She uses it in her opposition to the MSJ, for one. Typically Lively calls it retaliatory campaign but she has used the term.

And you think it only means spreading falsehoods? That’s it?

DP - I looked up the definition of a smear campaign three places and all three talked about the promotion of negative propaganda, not intentionally spreading known falsehoods. The later seems to be linked more closely to defamation. Are people confusing the two?

Probably because they also think sexual harassment is sexual assault.

PP - agree. I mentioned in an early post that some posters seem to be confusing acts required to prove sexual harassment with sexual assault.

Show us the post, because another thing the Blake bots re just making up.

What kind of person argues with a bot?

So you are both admitting you are a bot and no such post exists? Thank you.

Just pointing out your ridiculousness. You think called out a bot and then argued with it. Why so you do that? Are you a bot?

[Anonymous]

Am I missing something — Didtionary.com defines smear campaign as an attempt to tarnish a reputation by slander or vilification.

How is slander different than a falsehood？

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I missing something — Didtionary.com defines smear campaign as an attempt to tarnish a reputation by slander or vilification.

How is slander different than a falsehood？

What is vilification in your opinion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I missing something — Didtionary.com defines smear campaign as an attempt to tarnish a reputation by slander or vilification.

How is slander different than a falsehood？

What is vilification in your opinion?

Certainly not true statements about a person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I missing something — Didtionary.com defines smear campaign as an attempt to tarnish a reputation by slander or vilification.

How is slander different than a falsehood？

What is vilification in your opinion?

More interested in how you read that definition and concluded it didn’t mention falsity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I missing something — Didtionary.com defines smear campaign as an attempt to tarnish a reputation by slander or vilification.

How is slander different than a falsehood？

What is vilification in your opinion?

More interested in how you read that definition and concluded it didn’t mention falsity.

What definition? The one you are cherry picking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I missing something — Didtionary.com defines smear campaign as an attempt to tarnish a reputation by slander or vilification.

How is slander different than a falsehood？

What is vilification in your opinion?

More interested in how you read that definition and concluded it didn’t mention falsity.

What definition? The one you are cherry picking?

No, the one you misrepresented from a dictionary.com, the only of your three “sources” that was actually a dictionary.

Blake supporters just as dishonest as she is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I missing something — Didtionary.com defines smear campaign as an attempt to tarnish a reputation by slander or vilification.

How is slander different than a falsehood？

What is vilification in your opinion?

More interested in how you read that definition and concluded it didn’t mention falsity.

What definition? The one you are cherry picking?

Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries versus Wikipedia. You’re pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m going with the Cambridge and Oxford Dictionaries over Wikipedia.

PP wasn’t citing the Oxford English Dictionary. It’s was google AI’s “Oxford Languages” dictionary, which is found at https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

Regardless, I don’t think a judge is going to let definition of the word smear campaign determine the outcome of this case. It’s going to hinge on whether the actions taken by the defendants amount to retaliation. And retaliation does not require spreading falsehoods. Nor is it limited to firing, negative reviews, being passed over for a promotion or any of the more egregious examples provided by an early poster.

I feel like there are too many posters commenting who repeatedly attempt to refine legal terms. As PP mentioned, getting a jury to agree with less direct forms of SH and retaliation will be a heavier lift, but that is common across multiple areas of litigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I missing something — Didtionary.com defines smear campaign as an attempt to tarnish a reputation by slander or vilification.

How is slander different than a falsehood？

What is vilification in your opinion?

More interested in how you read that definition and concluded it didn’t mention falsity.

What definition? The one you are cherry picking?

Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries versus Wikipedia. You’re pathetic.

So you don't know what vilification means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I missing something — Didtionary.com defines smear campaign as an attempt to tarnish a reputation by slander or vilification.

How is slander different than a falsehood？

What is vilification in your opinion?

Per the Cambridge dictionary, it’s:
“the act of saying or writing unpleasant things about someone or something, in order to cause other people to have a bad opinion of them.”

[Anonymous]

Here's a definition from a random legal website that is probably most on point - "often" but does not necessarily include falsehoods.

https://legal-resources.uslegalforms.com/s/smear-campaign
A smear campaign refers to a coordinated effort to damage an individual's reputation, often through misleading or false information. This tactic is commonly used in politics, where rival candidates or parties attempt to undermine each other's credibility and public image. Smear campaigns can involve various activities, including spreading rumors, making unfounded allegations, or highlighting negative aspects of a person's character or past actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a definition from a random legal website that is probably most on point - "often" but does not necessarily include falsehoods.

https://legal-resources.uslegalforms.com/s/smear-campaign
A smear campaign refers to a coordinated effort to damage an individual's reputation, often through misleading or false information. This tactic is commonly used in politics, where rival candidates or parties attempt to undermine each other's credibility and public image. Smear campaigns can involve various activities, including spreading rumors, making unfounded allegations, or highlighting negative aspects of a person's character or past actions.

Misleading or false. Blake has identified no such statements or articles.