Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

I just posted but yes; BL did the same thing and did it first. And she tried to get her Barbenheimer moment by having her MIL and Hugh Jackman interviewing her cast mates for the promo. Oh was it a fun movie? Double feature with Deadpool? She and her husband are idiots.

[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.

Pp, I mean this with all due respect but if you vote, are a consumer or live any where in this country you are being influenced and manipulated. Period.

[Anonymous]

And, I think if Baldoni had sued Lively/Reynolds for defamation in the first place, we'd all be sitting here with our popcorn, but without that icky feeling of knowing skeezy PR campaigns aren't a great thing for man/womankind.

Can someone sue for defamation if the allegations were made in a legal filing?

[Anonymous]

Could the Deadpool character be grounds for a false light suit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could the Deadpool character be grounds for a false light suit?

Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could the Deadpool character be grounds for a false light suit?

Satire/parody is protected speech.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/drawing-justice-courtroom-illustrations/about-this-exhibition/significant-and-landmark-cases/satire-is-protected-free-speech/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the Deadpool character be grounds for a false light suit?

Satire/parody is protected speech.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/drawing-justice-courtroom-illustrations/about-this-exhibition/significant-and-landmark-cases/satire-is-protected-free-speech/

Thanks PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the Deadpool character be grounds for a false light suit?

Satire/parody is protected speech.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/drawing-justice-courtroom-illustrations/about-this-exhibition/significant-and-landmark-cases/satire-is-protected-free-speech/

Thanks PP.

But Reynolds was going around (allegedly) calling him a sexual predator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the Deadpool character be grounds for a false light suit?

Satire/parody is protected speech.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/drawing-justice-courtroom-illustrations/about-this-exhibition/significant-and-landmark-cases/satire-is-protected-free-speech/

Thanks PP.

But Reynolds was going around (allegedly) calling him a sexual predator.

It's not clear to me that Reynolds ever called Baldoni a sexual predator. This is a good example of where Baldoni's docs don't always support what he is alleging. There's an allegation that Reynold's called Baldoni's agent and called Baldoni a "deranged predator" but it's not clear where this quote comes from. Is that literally what Reynolds said or is that what Baldoni's agent told Baldoni he said? Or is it how Baldoni interpreted what his agent said? Or how Abel and Nathan interpreted with the agent said? A lot of people involved have a tendency to use very strong language (Abel and Nathan's texts to each other are just constant over-the-top foul language).

And then later in Baldoni's docs it uses this language regarding what Reynolds said to a WME exec at the Deadpool premiere party: "Reynolds approached a senior executive at WME and expressed his deep disdain for Baldoni, going as far as to suggest that the agency is working with a 'sexual predator.'" Did Reynolds actually say "sexual predator"? Or did he imply it when he expressed his disdain for Baldoni? Those are two very different accusations and the choice to put the words sexual predator in quotes without attributing that quote to anyone is... interesting.

I know people will yell at me and say I'm shilling for Lively but I'm really not. I think Lively also plays fast and loose with some facts, such as the way her complaint sneakily implies that she was wearing nothing but a modesty shield int he birth scene when it appears she was wearing briefs (though even here I also think Baldoni gets cute by claiming a woman wearing briefs in a birth scene is "fully clothed" -- I don't consider myself fully clothed in my underwear, especially not if I'm lying on a hospital bed with my legs in stirrups, but I digress).

The point is that both complaints have been a bit questionable in terms of presenting "facts" and I would be careful about marrying myself to either narrative. I think both sides have trumped up allegations quite a bit and it's hard to say what is going to be left to believe once answers have been filed and some discovery has been undertaken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the Deadpool character be grounds for a false light suit?

Satire/parody is protected speech.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/drawing-justice-courtroom-illustrations/about-this-exhibition/significant-and-landmark-cases/satire-is-protected-free-speech/

Thanks PP.

But Reynolds was going around (allegedly) calling him a sexual predator.

It's not clear to me that Reynolds ever called Baldoni a sexual predator. This is a good example of where Baldoni's docs don't always support what he is alleging. There's an allegation that Reynold's called Baldoni's agent and called Baldoni a "deranged predator" but it's not clear where this quote comes from. Is that literally what Reynolds said or is that what Baldoni's agent told Baldoni he said? Or is it how Baldoni interpreted what his agent said? Or how Abel and Nathan interpreted with the agent said? A lot of people involved have a tendency to use very strong language (Abel and Nathan's texts to each other are just constant over-the-top foul language).

And then later in Baldoni's docs it uses this language regarding what Reynolds said to a WME exec at the Deadpool premiere party: "Reynolds approached a senior executive at WME and expressed his deep disdain for Baldoni, going as far as to suggest that the agency is working with a 'sexual predator.'" Did Reynolds actually say "sexual predator"? Or did he imply it when he expressed his disdain for Baldoni? Those are two very different accusations and the choice to put the words sexual predator in quotes without attributing that quote to anyone is... interesting.

I know people will yell at me and say I'm shilling for Lively but I'm really not. I think Lively also plays fast and loose with some facts, such as the way her complaint sneakily implies that she was wearing nothing but a modesty shield int he birth scene when it appears she was wearing briefs (though even here I also think Baldoni gets cute by claiming a woman wearing briefs in a birth scene is "fully clothed" -- I don't consider myself fully clothed in my underwear, especially not if I'm lying on a hospital bed with my legs in stirrups, but I digress).

The point is that both complaints have been a bit questionable in terms of presenting "facts" and I would be careful about marrying myself to either narrative. I think both sides have trumped up allegations quite a bit and it's hard to say what is going to be left to believe once answers have been filed and some discovery has been undertaken.

For sure. I earlier wrote he should have sued her. But I meant that more as, he should have sued her, if what he’s alleging in his suit is true. If he’s just making a bunch of stuff up as a defense, then he’d have no defamation claim. But if he’s lying, he’s going to lose this case too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the Deadpool character be grounds for a false light suit?

Satire/parody is protected speech.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/drawing-justice-courtroom-illustrations/about-this-exhibition/significant-and-landmark-cases/satire-is-protected-free-speech/

Thanks PP.

But Reynolds was going around (allegedly) calling him a sexual predator.

It's not clear to me that Reynolds ever called Baldoni a sexual predator. This is a good example of where Baldoni's docs don't always support what he is alleging. There's an allegation that Reynold's called Baldoni's agent and called Baldoni a "deranged predator" but it's not clear where this quote comes from. Is that literally what Reynolds said or is that what Baldoni's agent told Baldoni he said? Or is it how Baldoni interpreted what his agent said? Or how Abel and Nathan interpreted with the agent said? A lot of people involved have a tendency to use very strong language (Abel and Nathan's texts to each other are just constant over-the-top foul language).

And then later in Baldoni's docs it uses this language regarding what Reynolds said to a WME exec at the Deadpool premiere party: "Reynolds approached a senior executive at WME and expressed his deep disdain for Baldoni, going as far as to suggest that the agency is working with a 'sexual predator.'" Did Reynolds actually say "sexual predator"? Or did he imply it when he expressed his disdain for Baldoni? Those are two very different accusations and the choice to put the words sexual predator in quotes without attributing that quote to anyone is... interesting.

I know people will yell at me and say I'm shilling for Lively but I'm really not. I think Lively also plays fast and loose with some facts, such as the way her complaint sneakily implies that she was wearing nothing but a modesty shield int he birth scene when it appears she was wearing briefs (though even here I also think Baldoni gets cute by claiming a woman wearing briefs in a birth scene is "fully clothed" -- I don't consider myself fully clothed in my underwear, especially not if I'm lying on a hospital bed with my legs in stirrups, but I digress).

The point is that both complaints have been a bit questionable in terms of presenting "facts" and I would be careful about marrying myself to either narrative. I think both sides have trumped up allegations quite a bit and it's hard to say what is going to be left to believe once answers have been filed and some discovery has been undertaken.

For sure. I earlier wrote he should have sued her. But I meant that more as, he should have sued her, if what he’s alleging in his suit is true. If he’s just making a bunch of stuff up as a defense, then he’d have no defamation claim. But if he’s lying, he’s going to lose this case too.

Good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the Deadpool character be grounds for a false light suit?

Satire/parody is protected speech.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/drawing-justice-courtroom-illustrations/about-this-exhibition/significant-and-landmark-cases/satire-is-protected-free-speech/

Thanks PP.

But Reynolds was going around (allegedly) calling him a sexual predator.

If Reynolds literally said that about Baldoni, the actual person, then Baldoni has grounds to sue him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the Deadpool character be grounds for a false light suit?

Satire/parody is protected speech.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/drawing-justice-courtroom-illustrations/about-this-exhibition/significant-and-landmark-cases/satire-is-protected-free-speech/

Thanks PP.

But Reynolds was going around (allegedly) calling him a sexual predator.

It's not clear to me that Reynolds ever called Baldoni a sexual predator. This is a good example of where Baldoni's docs don't always support what he is alleging. There's an allegation that Reynold's called Baldoni's agent and called Baldoni a "deranged predator" but it's not clear where this quote comes from. Is that literally what Reynolds said or is that what Baldoni's agent told Baldoni he said? Or is it how Baldoni interpreted what his agent said? Or how Abel and Nathan interpreted with the agent said? A lot of people involved have a tendency to use very strong language (Abel and Nathan's texts to each other are just constant over-the-top foul language).

And then later in Baldoni's docs it uses this language regarding what Reynolds said to a WME exec at the Deadpool premiere party: "Reynolds approached a senior executive at WME and expressed his deep disdain for Baldoni, going as far as to suggest that the agency is working with a 'sexual predator.'" Did Reynolds actually say "sexual predator"? Or did he imply it when he expressed his disdain for Baldoni? Those are two very different accusations and the choice to put the words sexual predator in quotes without attributing that quote to anyone is... interesting.

I know people will yell at me and say I'm shilling for Lively but I'm really not. I think Lively also plays fast and loose with some facts, such as the way her complaint sneakily implies that she was wearing nothing but a modesty shield int he birth scene when it appears she was wearing briefs (though even here I also think Baldoni gets cute by claiming a woman wearing briefs in a birth scene is "fully clothed" -- I don't consider myself fully clothed in my underwear, especially not if I'm lying on a hospital bed with my legs in stirrups, but I digress).

The point is that both complaints have been a bit questionable in terms of presenting "facts" and I would be careful about marrying myself to either narrative. I think both sides have trumped up allegations quite a bit and it's hard to say what is going to be left to believe once answers have been filed and some discovery has been undertaken.

DP, but this part of the Baldoni complaint also really bothered me. I thought it was unfair to call Lively “fully clothed” because she had on briefs or panties or whatever — one layer of protection between her genitals and the obstetrician actors hands etc. With lots of skin showing is not really “fully clothed.” It was clear from Lively’s complaint that she was talking about what covering was on her genetalia, and not so much the rest of her body. Then Baldoni cited to her gown and the pregnancy belly as though that were a second and third layer of covering of her genitalia, which is nonsense. But as you say, Lively’s own complaint shadily talked about a thin strip covering just her genitalia instead of saying she was wearing panties/briefs, which also seemed deceptive if she was, so I didn’t post my complaint.

I will say that, watching the scene, they either edited out the black briefs or the black briefs are a lie, because you can basically see all of Lively’s leg from torso through lower leg, and there are no black briefs there. At one point I thought I saw something that might be a white cloth or tubing. But you definitely don’t get black brief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the Deadpool character be grounds for a false light suit?

Satire/parody is protected speech.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/drawing-justice-courtroom-illustrations/about-this-exhibition/significant-and-landmark-cases/satire-is-protected-free-speech/

Thanks PP.

But Reynolds was going around (allegedly) calling him a sexual predator.

It's not clear to me that Reynolds ever called Baldoni a sexual predator. This is a good example of where Baldoni's docs don't always support what he is alleging. There's an allegation that Reynold's called Baldoni's agent and called Baldoni a "deranged predator" but it's not clear where this quote comes from. Is that literally what Reynolds said or is that what Baldoni's agent told Baldoni he said? Or is it how Baldoni interpreted what his agent said? Or how Abel and Nathan interpreted with the agent said? A lot of people involved have a tendency to use very strong language (Abel and Nathan's texts to each other are just constant over-the-top foul language).

And then later in Baldoni's docs it uses this language regarding what Reynolds said to a WME exec at the Deadpool premiere party: "Reynolds approached a senior executive at WME and expressed his deep disdain for Baldoni, going as far as to suggest that the agency is working with a 'sexual predator.'" Did Reynolds actually say "sexual predator"? Or did he imply it when he expressed his disdain for Baldoni? Those are two very different accusations and the choice to put the words sexual predator in quotes without attributing that quote to anyone is... interesting.

I know people will yell at me and say I'm shilling for Lively but I'm really not. I think Lively also plays fast and loose with some facts, such as the way her complaint sneakily implies that she was wearing nothing but a modesty shield int he birth scene when it appears she was wearing briefs (though even here I also think Baldoni gets cute by claiming a woman wearing briefs in a birth scene is "fully clothed" -- I don't consider myself fully clothed in my underwear, especially not if I'm lying on a hospital bed with my legs in stirrups, but I digress).

The point is that both complaints have been a bit questionable in terms of presenting "facts" and I would be careful about marrying myself to either narrative. I think both sides have trumped up allegations quite a bit and it's hard to say what is going to be left to believe once answers have been filed and some discovery has been undertaken.

DP, but this part of the Baldoni complaint also really bothered me. I thought it was unfair to call Lively “fully clothed” because she had on briefs or panties or whatever — one layer of protection between her genitals and the obstetrician actors hands etc. With lots of skin showing is not really “fully clothed.” It was clear from Lively’s complaint that she was talking about what covering was on her genetalia, and not so much the rest of her body. Then Baldoni cited to her gown and the pregnancy belly as though that were a second and third layer of covering of her genitalia, which is nonsense. But as you say, Lively’s own complaint shadily talked about a thin strip covering just her genitalia instead of saying she was wearing panties/briefs, which also seemed deceptive if she was, so I didn’t post my complaint.

I will say that, watching the scene, they either edited out the black briefs or the black briefs are a lie, because you can basically see all of Lively’s leg from torso through lower leg, and there are no black briefs there. At one point I thought I saw something that might be a white cloth or tubing. But you definitely don’t get black brief.

Can we get another 800 paragraphs about this please? Do you and Tweedledum think one of you can explain how he lies or misleads? Is it in any responsive material that the fake belly and hospital gown cover her vulva?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the Deadpool character be grounds for a false light suit?

Satire/parody is protected speech.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/drawing-justice-courtroom-illustrations/about-this-exhibition/significant-and-landmark-cases/satire-is-protected-free-speech/

Thanks PP.

But Reynolds was going around (allegedly) calling him a sexual predator.

It's not clear to me that Reynolds ever called Baldoni a sexual predator. This is a good example of where Baldoni's docs don't always support what he is alleging. There's an allegation that Reynold's called Baldoni's agent and called Baldoni a "deranged predator" but it's not clear where this quote comes from. Is that literally what Reynolds said or is that what Baldoni's agent told Baldoni he said? Or is it how Baldoni interpreted what his agent said? Or how Abel and Nathan interpreted with the agent said? A lot of people involved have a tendency to use very strong language (Abel and Nathan's texts to each other are just constant over-the-top foul language).

And then later in Baldoni's docs it uses this language regarding what Reynolds said to a WME exec at the Deadpool premiere party: "Reynolds approached a senior executive at WME and expressed his deep disdain for Baldoni, going as far as to suggest that the agency is working with a 'sexual predator.'" Did Reynolds actually say "sexual predator"? Or did he imply it when he expressed his disdain for Baldoni? Those are two very different accusations and the choice to put the words sexual predator in quotes without attributing that quote to anyone is... interesting.

I know people will yell at me and say I'm shilling for Lively but I'm really not. I think Lively also plays fast and loose with some facts, such as the way her complaint sneakily implies that she was wearing nothing but a modesty shield int he birth scene when it appears she was wearing briefs (though even here I also think Baldoni gets cute by claiming a woman wearing briefs in a birth scene is "fully clothed" -- I don't consider myself fully clothed in my underwear, especially not if I'm lying on a hospital bed with my legs in stirrups, but I digress).

The point is that both complaints have been a bit questionable in terms of presenting "facts" and I would be careful about marrying myself to either narrative. I think both sides have trumped up allegations quite a bit and it's hard to say what is going to be left to believe once answers have been filed and some discovery has been undertaken.

DP, but this part of the Baldoni complaint also really bothered me. I thought it was unfair to call Lively “fully clothed” because she had on briefs or panties or whatever — one layer of protection between her genitals and the obstetrician actors hands etc. With lots of skin showing is not really “fully clothed.” It was clear from Lively’s complaint that she was talking about what covering was on her genetalia, and not so much the rest of her body. Then Baldoni cited to her gown and the pregnancy belly as though that were a second and third layer of covering of her genitalia, which is nonsense. But as you say, Lively’s own complaint shadily talked about a thin strip covering just her genitalia instead of saying she was wearing panties/briefs, which also seemed deceptive if she was, so I didn’t post my complaint.

I will say that, watching the scene, they either edited out the black briefs or the black briefs are a lie, because you can basically see all of Lively’s leg from torso through lower leg, and there are no black briefs there. At one point I thought I saw something that might be a white cloth or tubing. But you definitely don’t get black brief.

I'm not going to pull up the complaint, but I recall it was actually more shadily worded than that in that it didn't discuss what she, specifically, was wearing at all but had some kind of a footnote describing what "might me typically worn" during a scene of that type where it was a "thin strip." But it didn't actually say that's what SHE was wearing.