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:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

Yeah. I honestly hope Lively's team is not relying solely on discovery from Wallace to prove what Wallace did, but is hiring their own Internet forensics gurus or whatever to try to trace some of the crazy negative publicity that was coming back at Lively after Baldoni hired them -- and/or maybe trace some of the same addresses used planting stories from the Heard/Depp days also planting stories against Lively. Trying to find a copy of the Lively complaint, I saw on an old Reddit thread that someone there recognized that the person who resurfaced the prior Lively interview about "congrats on your baby bump" was also the same person who had resurfaced a ton of positive Depp interviews during the Depp/Heard trial. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1hjhfen/read_blake_livelys_complaint_against_wayfarer/ I guess I'm wondering whether Wallace, if he actually did terrible things, won't produce them. If so, and he actually did astroturf etc, i hope Lively will be able to trace things back to him and prove it, anyway. Seems like that could be a costly project but would be important to winning her case.

I have to say, I do believe PR reps and astroturfing sunk Amber Heard in the public opinion and that's mostly what killed her at trial. That whole PR seamy underbelly is rotten and should be stopped. I know folks will say that Lively is some sort of racist dummy who is ultra privileged and has had things handed to her, and I don't know much about her but I agree she is privileged. I think I recall she directed a music video for Swift at some point a few years ago to dip her toe in the director's seat? Not everybody gets to do that. And she's white and pretty-ish and married to a famous rich actor. But nobody should have negative PR campaigns planting stories to change the narrative about them out there -- especially negative stories, especially right before a trial. It's just wrong. Like, it would be wrong to do it against Diddy, and I think even people on this thread would agree that Lively is nowhere as bad as that. (Maybe some would not, actually - very strong opinions here!)

Reviving an old interview clip of Lively behaving badly is not actionable.

If you're paying people to spend their time reviving old stories about the woman you're working with (true or false, though false is worse) that make her look bad when you specifically signed an agreement attesting you wouldn't retaliate against her, I think that might be in violation of that agreement actually.

She probably should have made the agreement a bit more explicit and stated they would not hire PR to campaign against her, or somesuch, because as it is, he can still argue that whatever he did was not retaliation, but self-preservation. Actually, it would be interesting if celebrities started including this type of provision in their contracts!

Depends on the nature of the PR. If Lively can show his PR team was planting stories that had nothing to do with the movie or Baldoni or their conflict, that's going to be tough for him. Like a post that defends Baldoni and says Lively was difficult on set is one thing. But a post that claims Lively slept woth Harvey Weinstein, alleges negative things about her marriage or family, etc.? If that kind of post can be traced to Baldoni, he has a problem.

The bolded would be defamation, so even more clear cut. Here, the allegation seems to be the trolls/bots did things that would otherwise be legal - posting opinions on her and reposting old, but true, interviews. If Jed Wallace facilitated stories that alleged stories that were false, she can definitely sue him for defamation. If he facilitated stories that were otherwise opinion or based on real interviews, that's generally not illegal... except for this novel approach of "retaliation" for SH... she can certainly allege that Baldoni intended retaliation, and probably the PR people as he would have explained why he was hiring them... but much harder to hang Wallace on that, if he was never told about that strategy when they subcontracted with him (if, in fact, Lively is correct that the strategy was retaliation). And that's probably why Wallace wasn't added to the lawsuit in the end, but now he's saying she defamed him for including him as a defendant in her published draft complaint... and now she wants to sue him anyway!

That's what makes this case so fun... so many twists and turns... it's a shame this thread ends up in stan wars half the time.

I don’t see how a defamation case by Lively against Wallace should be part of this lawsuit, and I think her lawyers agree . She should be suing him separately, or just countering suing him. It’s really too bad she is impervious to advice, but that’s how she got in this situation to begin with. She’ll eventually realize settlement is the only way out, but apparently not without spending a lot more money first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The bolded would be defamation, so even more clear cut.

Oops, forgot to bold. I was referring to planting stories about her marriage or family or that she slept with Weinstein.

I haven’t seen any such stories, just the various disastrous interviews. Someone should have given her media training long ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The bolded would be defamation, so even more clear cut.

Oops, forgot to bold. I was referring to planting stories about her marriage or family or that she slept with Weinstein.

I haven’t seen any such stories, just the various disastrous interviews. Someone should have given her media training long ago.

Yes, that was a hypothetical. Those type stories would be defamation whereas reposting the baby bump interview would not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The bolded would be defamation, so even more clear cut.

Oops, forgot to bold. I was referring to planting stories about her marriage or family or that she slept with Weinstein.

I haven’t seen any such stories, just the various disastrous interviews. Someone should have given her media training long ago.

Yes, that was a hypothetical. Those type stories would be defamation whereas reposting the baby bump interview would not.

Only if false.

[Anonymous]

There is not space for nuanced opinion..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

Yeah. I honestly hope Lively's team is not relying solely on discovery from Wallace to prove what Wallace did, but is hiring their own Internet forensics gurus or whatever to try to trace some of the crazy negative publicity that was coming back at Lively after Baldoni hired them -- and/or maybe trace some of the same addresses used planting stories from the Heard/Depp days also planting stories against Lively. Trying to find a copy of the Lively complaint, I saw on an old Reddit thread that someone there recognized that the person who resurfaced the prior Lively interview about "congrats on your baby bump" was also the same person who had resurfaced a ton of positive Depp interviews during the Depp/Heard trial. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1hjhfen/read_blake_livelys_complaint_against_wayfarer/ I guess I'm wondering whether Wallace, if he actually did terrible things, won't produce them. If so, and he actually did astroturf etc, i hope Lively will be able to trace things back to him and prove it, anyway. Seems like that could be a costly project but would be important to winning her case.

I have to say, I do believe PR reps and astroturfing sunk Amber Heard in the public opinion and that's mostly what killed her at trial. That whole PR seamy underbelly is rotten and should be stopped. I know folks will say that Lively is some sort of racist dummy who is ultra privileged and has had things handed to her, and I don't know much about her but I agree she is privileged. I think I recall she directed a music video for Swift at some point a few years ago to dip her toe in the director's seat? Not everybody gets to do that. And she's white and pretty-ish and married to a famous rich actor. But nobody should have negative PR campaigns planting stories to change the narrative about them out there -- especially negative stories, especially right before a trial. It's just wrong. Like, it would be wrong to do it against Diddy, and I think even people on this thread would agree that Lively is nowhere as bad as that. (Maybe some would not, actually - very strong opinions here!)

Reviving an old interview clip of Lively behaving badly is not actionable.

It might be, if it was done in retaliation for sexual harassment. There's a lot she would have to prove and a lot of legal arguments to win to get there, granted, and it wouldn't generally be actionable otherwise. And Baldoni's got lots of defenses, especially that the underlying SH claim is not credible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

You keep trying to sell this, but it really looks like there is no there there. Blake generated sufficient bad publicity on her own so Wallace didn’t need to do anything in this case. Hence his lawsuit against Lively and why he is not currently on the complaint. But it is desperate times for the Lively camp and since her legal team is clearly not running the show, I guess she’ll try to add him. Would not be surprised if he immediately moves to dismiss. What a waste of time.

DP but I disagree. If they launched a smear campaign and she can prove it and that it was done in retaliation (this is a lot to prove, and I am not saying she'll be successful) then I don't think "she had bad publicity on her own anyway" defeats the case. Even Trump, who has tons of bad publicity, was about to wrangle a defamation settlement. She still has to go on to prove damages to her brand, and a jury has to agree the damages were caused by the smear campaign. That will be tough. I do recall she alleged that when she closed her personal social media accounts, the accounts believed to be paid trolls moved on to her business accounts, so that may bolster her claims.

Yes - I hope they can trace the paid trolls. It's crazy to me that suddenly Lively was getting a bunch of comments from haters on her Instagram. Who posts negative comments on the Instagram of someone they hate, in such large numbers? If you don't like them, you don't follow them in the first place. I'll be very interested to see how this astroturfing part of the case develops -- it's the main reason why I'm following this case in the first place.

What I’d be more interested in this point is an investigation of whether Blake is paying trolls.

The Molly McPherson PR lady who analyzed this, I personally think pretty fairly, thinks the reason the Lively camp didn't go after Wallace is because they weren't totally sure what he was doing but they also may have been doing the same thing.

… or because they know what he posted isn’t false, or that they’d have to put a lot of dirt on display to prove it is false …

[Anonymous]

Pp here- the facts simply don’t support her assertions. Calling him creepy or his set was not run perfectly does not equate to guilt or questionable character that you insist on driving as a narrative for potential guilt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is not space for nuanced opinion..

There’s be a lot of nuanced opinion, but people just get upset when others don’t agree with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is not space for nuanced opinion..

Yeah, PP above you here is just like "I will only accept opinions that get closer to total agreement with me - and even those must be paid shills" ha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The bolded would be defamation, so even more clear cut.

Oops, forgot to bold. I was referring to planting stories about her marriage or family or that she slept with Weinstein.

I haven’t seen any such stories, just the various disastrous interviews. Someone should have given her media training long ago.

Yes, that was a hypothetical. Those type stories would be defamation whereas reposting the baby bump interview would not.

DP here. I will say I've seen plenty of posts here and on Reddit that allege Lively slept with Weinstein and report all kinds of wild theories about her marriage and family. And they were absolutely there last August when there was that huge groundswell of anti-Lively activity online. I'm certain some (many? all?) of those posts are just organically people jumping on a bandwagon to hate on Lively. But I would certainly not be shocked to discover some shady PR firm was behind that kind of talk either.

It genuinely was weird how much hate she got online last year, even with that old interview getting dug up and some of her obnoxious comments while promoting the movie. I participated in it, so I saw it happen. But something I remembered after she filed her lawsuit and I read about Baldoni's PR team: at one point in August or September, I remember my DH (who does not follow celebrity news at all and did not really know who Blake Lively was at the time) asking me out of the blue if he should care about what was going on with her. Very few things break through to him in that way, but the Lively stuff did, which is telling to me.

When I learned that Baldoni had hired the same team that worked for Johnny Depp, I'll be honest: I felt stupid. Because I absolutely jumped on that bandwagon and was posting about how horrible she was in that interview and how tone deaf she was and how "I never liked her." And now I genuinely wonder how much of that was organically how I felt and how much of it was me buying into a narrative. It's making me question my instincts and motivations. I'll definitely be paying close attention to this aspect of the case because I feel weirdly implicated in it. I don't think Lively is some kind of saint and any public person has to accept they'll be talked and gossiped about. But the internet hate can get out of control and if it's being pushed by interested parties, that's actually really disturbing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The bolded would be defamation, so even more clear cut.

Oops, forgot to bold. I was referring to planting stories about her marriage or family or that she slept with Weinstein.

I haven’t seen any such stories, just the various disastrous interviews. Someone should have given her media training long ago.

Yes, that was a hypothetical. Those type stories would be defamation whereas reposting the baby bump interview would not.

DP here. I will say I've seen plenty of posts here and on Reddit that allege Lively slept with Weinstein and report all kinds of wild theories about her marriage and family. And they were absolutely there last August when there was that huge groundswell of anti-Lively activity online. I'm certain some (many? all?) of those posts are just organically people jumping on a bandwagon to hate on Lively. But I would certainly not be shocked to discover some shady PR firm was behind that kind of talk either.

It genuinely was weird how much hate she got online last year, even with that old interview getting dug up and some of her obnoxious comments while promoting the movie. I participated in it, so I saw it happen. But something I remembered after she filed her lawsuit and I read about Baldoni's PR team: at one point in August or September, I remember my DH (who does not follow celebrity news at all and did not really know who Blake Lively was at the time) asking me out of the blue if he should care about what was going on with her. Very few things break through to him in that way, but the Lively stuff did, which is telling to me.

When I learned that Baldoni had hired the same team that worked for Johnny Depp, I'll be honest: I felt stupid. Because I absolutely jumped on that bandwagon and was posting about how horrible she was in that interview and how tone deaf she was and how "I never liked her." And now I genuinely wonder how much of that was organically how I felt and how much of it was me buying into a narrative. It's making me question my instincts and motivations. I'll definitely be paying close attention to this aspect of the case because I feel weirdly implicated in it. I don't think Lively is some kind of saint and any public person has to accept they'll be talked and gossiped about. But the internet hate can get out of control and if it's being pushed by interested parties, that's actually really disturbing.

DP, yes -- I was not online live in reddit and other sources watching this, I just saw some of it in the old thread here and I don't like it. I don't want to be manipulated to hate certain people so that they'll win or lose their court cases. The PR reps texting one another that "of course" they can't put the actual things that they're going to do to Lively in a document because if that document got into the wrong hands it would be very bad for the client, Baldoni shows me what the people he hired are capable of. And he was pushing them to go farther -- they just didn't want to write it down. Very hard to believe all of that effort was totally organic given some of the stuff she was seeing on her Instagram, and then her business sites. But, it will all come down to proving it, if it gets to that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The bolded would be defamation, so even more clear cut.

Oops, forgot to bold. I was referring to planting stories about her marriage or family or that she slept with Weinstein.

I haven’t seen any such stories, just the various disastrous interviews. Someone should have given her media training long ago.

Yes, that was a hypothetical. Those type stories would be defamation whereas reposting the baby bump interview would not.

DP here. I will say I've seen plenty of posts here and on Reddit that allege Lively slept with Weinstein and report all kinds of wild theories about her marriage and family. And they were absolutely there last August when there was that huge groundswell of anti-Lively activity online. I'm certain some (many? all?) of those posts are just organically people jumping on a bandwagon to hate on Lively. But I would certainly not be shocked to discover some shady PR firm was behind that kind of talk either.

It genuinely was weird how much hate she got online last year, even with that old interview getting dug up and some of her obnoxious comments while promoting the movie. I participated in it, so I saw it happen. But something I remembered after she filed her lawsuit and I read about Baldoni's PR team: at one point in August or September, I remember my DH (who does not follow celebrity news at all and did not really know who Blake Lively was at the time) asking me out of the blue if he should care about what was going on with her. Very few things break through to him in that way, but the Lively stuff did, which is telling to me.

When I learned that Baldoni had hired the same team that worked for Johnny Depp, I'll be honest: I felt stupid. Because I absolutely jumped on that bandwagon and was posting about how horrible she was in that interview and how tone deaf she was and how "I never liked her." And now I genuinely wonder how much of that was organically how I felt and how much of it was me buying into a narrative. It's making me question my instincts and motivations. I'll definitely be paying close attention to this aspect of the case because I feel weirdly implicated in it. I don't think Lively is some kind of saint and any public person has to accept they'll be talked and gossiped about. But the internet hate can get out of control and if it's being pushed by interested parties, that's actually really disturbing.

DP, yes -- I was not online live in reddit and other sources watching this, I just saw some of it in the old thread here and I don't like it. I don't want to be manipulated to hate certain people so that they'll win or lose their court cases. The PR reps texting one another that "of course" they can't put the actual things that they're going to do to Lively in a document because if that document got into the wrong hands it would be very bad for the client, Baldoni shows me what the people he hired are capable of. And he was pushing them to go farther -- they just didn't want to write it down. Very hard to believe all of that effort was totally organic given some of the stuff she was seeing on her Instagram, and then her business sites. But, it will all come down to proving it, if it gets to that point.

I would do the same thing as Baldoni if I knew I was innocent. I would make BL and RR sorry they ever met me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The bolded would be defamation, so even more clear cut.

Oops, forgot to bold. I was referring to planting stories about her marriage or family or that she slept with Weinstein.

I haven’t seen any such stories, just the various disastrous interviews. Someone should have given her media training long ago.

Yes, that was a hypothetical. Those type stories would be defamation whereas reposting the baby bump interview would not.

DP here. I will say I've seen plenty of posts here and on Reddit that allege Lively slept with Weinstein and report all kinds of wild theories about her marriage and family. And they were absolutely there last August when there was that huge groundswell of anti-Lively activity online. I'm certain some (many? all?) of those posts are just organically people jumping on a bandwagon to hate on Lively. But I would certainly not be shocked to discover some shady PR firm was behind that kind of talk either.

It genuinely was weird how much hate she got online last year, even with that old interview getting dug up and some of her obnoxious comments while promoting the movie. I participated in it, so I saw it happen. But something I remembered after she filed her lawsuit and I read about Baldoni's PR team: at one point in August or September, I remember my DH (who does not follow celebrity news at all and did not really know who Blake Lively was at the time) asking me out of the blue if he should care about what was going on with her. Very few things break through to him in that way, but the Lively stuff did, which is telling to me.

When I learned that Baldoni had hired the same team that worked for Johnny Depp, I'll be honest: I felt stupid. Because I absolutely jumped on that bandwagon and was posting about how horrible she was in that interview and how tone deaf she was and how "I never liked her." And now I genuinely wonder how much of that was organically how I felt and how much of it was me buying into a narrative. It's making me question my instincts and motivations. I'll definitely be paying close attention to this aspect of the case because I feel weirdly implicated in it. I don't think Lively is some kind of saint and any public person has to accept they'll be talked and gossiped about. But the internet hate can get out of control and if it's being pushed by interested parties, that's actually really disturbing.

DP, yes -- I was not online live in reddit and other sources watching this, I just saw some of it in the old thread here and I don't like it. I don't want to be manipulated to hate certain people so that they'll win or lose their court cases. The PR reps texting one another that "of course" they can't put the actual things that they're going to do to Lively in a document because if that document got into the wrong hands it would be very bad for the client, Baldoni shows me what the people he hired are capable of. And he was pushing them to go farther -- they just didn't want to write it down. Very hard to believe all of that effort was totally organic given some of the stuff she was seeing on her Instagram, and then her business sites. But, it will all come down to proving it, if it gets to that point.

I would do the same thing as Baldoni if I knew I was innocent. I would make BL and RR sorry they ever met me.

He could have sued her. I think if nothing else this case will have implications about how best to handle a work disaster like this. On both sides.

[Anonymous]

Over and over, I see it mentioned that Baldoni hired Depp’s team. But Lively has been working with Weinstein’s PR team and still does (Leslie Sloane)

Depp really more terrible than Weinstein? I think not. I think they are both plenty terrible but Weinstein is next level…

https://x.com/littlemissjacob/status/1874515770740457595

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pp here- the facts simply don’t support her assertions. Calling him creepy or his set was not run perfectly does not equate to guilt or questionable character that you insist on driving as a narrative for potential guilt.

This. I have avoided responding all day long for fear of going back and forth with this person. They are trying too hard to make it fit. The majority thinks that Baldoni is innocent of SH and no matter how creepy his voice sounds or how greasy they think he looks or how unprofessional his set was, it doesn’t add up to SH and it is just as simple as that.