Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

If others were harassed then it would have made sense to speak up when Blake first did. It seems like they are now dragged into it, if they even end up agreeing with what is being alleged because you can be uncomfortable at work and not harassed. If you saw the Sklenar/Lively interview in which she makes fun of DV victims, you can see him visibly squirming and so deeply uncomfortable with what she is saying. When he was asked about taking sides by Gayle King recently, he refused to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the girls are ganging up on Justin. Blake convince them into thinking it was an ‘uncomfortable’ environment.

Is making people uncomfortable criminal tough? It seems to muddle her point, like she's adding a laundry list of complaints because her initial point isn't strong.

It's a civil lawsuit, not a criminal charge. The question is whether he violated what is reasonable, not whether he committed a crime.

And in a hostile work environment claim, it will always be a "laundry list" be abuse she's not alleging that he coerced her into quid pro quo (which would be sexual harassment even if it never happened again) but that Baldoni and Heath created an environment that was, yes, "uncomfortable" for women on the set. And yes, discomfort would be enough if they can show multiple women experienced it and that multiple requests were made to change the behavior but that it persisted.

So yes, in this case, making several women feel uncomfortable would be enough to prove harassment. That's a form of harassment.

Who declined having an IC? Blake?

No, no one ever declined to have an IC. Baldoni doesn't even allege that. Lively declined one pre-production meeting with the IC to discuss the sex scenes. That's not the same thing as declining an IC altogether.

She wasn’t initially able to meet with the IC thus the IC was eliminated. Why didn’t she insist on meeting with IC at a later time?

No, that is not what happened even by Baldoni's narrative. She declined one pre-production meeting with the IC, to discuss sex scenes that were not even filmed until after the hiatus.

Also, she was not the only actor doing sex scenes -- there was also a sex scene with the younger versions of their characters. Even if Blake said "no thanks, I don't need an IC at all" (which she didn't), the production would need to continue to employ one for other actors. It also seems like regardless of what one actor says, you'd want an IC on a production with DV themes. But in any case, Lively didn't decline the IC. She declined one meeting with the IC prior to filming.

Lively ultimately asked for an IC to be with her at all times when on set with Baldoni, because of his habit of making scenes not written to be intimate or contain nudity to suddenly have one or the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the girls are ganging up on Justin. Blake convince them into thinking it was an ‘uncomfortable’ environment.

Is making people uncomfortable criminal tough? It seems to muddle her point, like she's adding a laundry list of complaints because her initial point isn't strong.

It's a civil lawsuit, not a criminal charge. The question is whether he violated what is reasonable, not whether he committed a crime.

And in a hostile work environment claim, it will always be a "laundry list" be abuse she's not alleging that he coerced her into quid pro quo (which would be sexual harassment even if it never happened again) but that Baldoni and Heath created an environment that was, yes, "uncomfortable" for women on the set. And yes, discomfort would be enough if they can show multiple women experienced it and that multiple requests were made to change the behavior but that it persisted.

So yes, in this case, making several women feel uncomfortable would be enough to prove harassment. That's a form of harassment.

Who declined having an IC? Blake?

No, no one ever declined to have an IC. Baldoni doesn't even allege that. Lively declined one pre-production meeting with the IC to discuss the sex scenes. That's not the same thing as declining an IC altogether.

It’s not, but it set Justin Baldoni up a bit - you can’t deny that. He was forced to relay handwritten notes to Blake and she use them against him.

Also, I don’t understand why people don’t get that in a movie of this budget, really any budget but especially one with a budget of 25 million which is not big for a Hollywood movie, you just don’t have an IC constantly waiting in the wings to come out and meet with people. She is a contracted position and they probably had her contracted for a few meetings. If Blake missed those meetings, there’s no guarantee that she can come back again. She’s probably contracted on other movies. So yes, it is a problem that Blake missed meetings and people keep dismissing that as if it is nothing, but it actually is really relevant.

Just like many things, it seems like Blake constantly set people up. Inviting people into the trailer while she was breast-feeding or pumping and then later, turning around as if people did something inappropriate.

Refusing to follow directions in scenes that the director wanted, and then claiming things were unscripted. She has a pattern of doing this.

She appears to be uncooperative nightmare to work with. I think she is a borderline personality. She will not win this.

[Anonymous]

The consent stuff is interesting. I’m 50, and I’d say I’ve probably never given verbal consent to a man in the form of, “Would you like to have sex?” “Yes.” That would have been a little cringey for the man to ask. All my sex has been consensual; it’s just that my consent was nonverbal. I imagine this is more the issue Baldoni and Heath have grappled with aloud, but of course I wasn’t there.

[Anonymous]

I read that Taylor is distancing from her. I only know who Blake is due to Taylor. I've never watched Blake in anything. Once I saw she was telling people to dress up for a movie about domestic violence, I thought there was something wrong with this woman.

I do not envy Taylor at all. She's become friends with some weird people (the writer who abused her sister is another), and Blake is just another of them. Seems like a user.

Must be hard to find real friends when you are so famous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The consent stuff is interesting. I’m 50, and I’d say I’ve probably never given verbal consent to a man in the form of, “Would you like to have sex?” “Yes.” That would have been a little cringey for the man to ask. All my sex has been consensual; it’s just that my consent was nonverbal. I imagine this is more the issue Baldoni and Heath have grappled with aloud, but of course I wasn’t there.

To add, this was acting in a film. They weren’t really having sex. These are supposed actors.

[Anonymous]

This Amended Complaint really adds nothing. Other than a defendant. Blake has tried to create some excitement by alleging other complainants but if their complaints were significant, she would have put them in the complaint itself. A big nothing burger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The consent stuff is interesting. I’m 50, and I’d say I’ve probably never given verbal consent to a man in the form of, “Would you like to have sex?” “Yes.” That would have been a little cringey for the man to ask. All my sex has been consensual; it’s just that my consent was nonverbal. I imagine this is more the issue Baldoni and Heath have grappled with aloud, but of course I wasn’t there.

To add, this was acting in a film. They weren’t really having sex. These are supposed actors.

I’m not talking about filming. I’m taking about the part where Baldoni *allegedly* talked about his past history with women and not always getting their consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The consent stuff is interesting. I’m 50, and I’d say I’ve probably never given verbal consent to a man in the form of, “Would you like to have sex?” “Yes.” That would have been a little cringey for the man to ask. All my sex has been consensual; it’s just that my consent was nonverbal. I imagine this is more the issue Baldoni and Heath have grappled with aloud, but of course I wasn’t there.

This whole proper sexual consent thing is weird to me. Prior to this we had the emotional intelligence to know if it was consensual or not, well most of us anyway. We have gone backwards in terms of emotional maturity, thanks millennials, where now we must have a hard copy consent signed, dated and timed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the girls are ganging up on Justin. Blake convince them into thinking it was an ‘uncomfortable’ environment.

Is making people uncomfortable criminal tough? It seems to muddle her point, like she's adding a laundry list of complaints because her initial point isn't strong.

It's a civil lawsuit, not a criminal charge. The question is whether he violated what is reasonable, not whether he committed a crime.

And in a hostile work environment claim, it will always be a "laundry list" be abuse she's not alleging that he coerced her into quid pro quo (which would be sexual harassment even if it never happened again) but that Baldoni and Heath created an environment that was, yes, "uncomfortable" for women on the set. And yes, discomfort would be enough if they can show multiple women experienced it and that multiple requests were made to change the behavior but that it persisted.

So yes, in this case, making several women feel uncomfortable would be enough to prove harassment. That's a form of harassment.

Who declined having an IC? Blake?

No, no one ever declined to have an IC. Baldoni doesn't even allege that. Lively declined one pre-production meeting with the IC to discuss the sex scenes. That's not the same thing as declining an IC altogether.

It’s not, but it set Justin Baldoni up a bit - you can’t deny that. He was forced to relay handwritten notes to Blake and she use them against him.

Also, I don’t understand why people don’t get that in a movie of this budget, really any budget but especially one with a budget of 25 million which is not big for a Hollywood movie, you just don’t have an IC constantly waiting in the wings to come out and meet with people. She is a contracted position and they probably had her contracted for a few meetings. If Blake missed those meetings, there’s no guarantee that she can come back again. She’s probably contracted on other movies. So yes, it is a problem that Blake missed meetings and people keep dismissing that as if it is nothing, but it actually is really relevant.

Just like many things, it seems like Blake constantly set people up. Inviting people into the trailer while she was breast-feeding or pumping and then later, turning around as if people did something inappropriate.

Refusing to follow directions in scenes that the director wanted, and then claiming things were unscripted. She has a pattern of doing this.

This. So confusing. On May 24, 2023, Blake sent a text to a woman who was a mutual friend of Baldoni and Heath describing them as "creeps... Like keep your hormones to yourselves. This is not mine. I don’t want it. I don’t want you [sic] gaze or words or tongue or videos of your naked wife. Yeah. It’s shocking. Clowns.”

But just the following week on June 2, 2023, Blake was comfortable inviting Baldoni into her trailer to rehearse their lines together while pumping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The consent stuff is interesting. I’m 50, and I’d say I’ve probably never given verbal consent to a man in the form of, “Would you like to have sex?” “Yes.” That would have been a little cringey for the man to ask. All my sex has been consensual; it’s just that my consent was nonverbal. I imagine this is more the issue Baldoni and Heath have grappled with aloud, but of course I wasn’t there.

To add, this was acting in a film. They weren’t really having sex. These are supposed actors.

I’m not talking about filming. I’m taking about the part where Baldoni *allegedly* talked about his past history with women and not always getting their consent.

I agree. Why go on a date if not attracted to someone? And if you don’t like something the other person is doing tell them and then refuse to see them again. Why are we making this into something more complicated than it has to be?

[Anonymous]

In August 2024, Sony confirmed that there had been no complaints of sexual harassment. So we are led to believe these claims came after.

It seems like during the promotion of the film Blake was able to sway other women, possibly Isabella and Jenny. This just does not even seem real. They finished the movie and seemingly had a really good experience, there are interviews with both of them saying what a great director he was and what a comfortable set it was. Then Blake gets to them during marketing and suddenly complaints are filed? The movie had been wrapped for months and months at this point.

This just does not add up at all and is really troubling to me. We also know Blake flew Isabella out for some special promotional things at her expense, meaning Blake paid for her wardrobe, plane ticket, hotel accommodations and everything. This whole thing is just really suspect.

[Anonymous]

Oh, and I’ll add, Liz plan whose whole thing is feminism is perfectly comfortable doing a podcast with Justin for years? Then all of a sudden she does a few projects with Ryan, Blake has a problem with Justin and now she’s dropped the podcast?

Okey-dokey folks, nothing to see here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the girls are ganging up on Justin. Blake convince them into thinking it was an ‘uncomfortable’ environment.

Is making people uncomfortable criminal tough? It seems to muddle her point, like she's adding a laundry list of complaints because her initial point isn't strong.

It's a civil lawsuit, not a criminal charge. The question is whether he violated what is reasonable, not whether he committed a crime.

And in a hostile work environment claim, it will always be a "laundry list" be abuse she's not alleging that he coerced her into quid pro quo (which would be sexual harassment even if it never happened again) but that Baldoni and Heath created an environment that was, yes, "uncomfortable" for women on the set. And yes, discomfort would be enough if they can show multiple women experienced it and that multiple requests were made to change the behavior but that it persisted.

So yes, in this case, making several women feel uncomfortable would be enough to prove harassment. That's a form of harassment.

There’s a lot of ifs there, the most important being “if requests were made to change and if it persisted”. This is the problem I have. Blake’s complaint is full of instances where she felt uncomfortable but didn’t say anything. This doesn’t cut it b/c none of the instances on their own were severe enough to be objectively harassment, and unless she speaks up, you also can’t call it pervasive. A laundry list of reasons she disliked him doesn’t equal harassment if those two burdens aren’t met. The dance scene, for example, she supposedly used humor to deflect instead of saying “hey, the script says dancing only so please no improvised kissing”. With harassment, unless it’s severe, it’s really important to make the other person aware, otherwise it’s just not fair to them. The hugging is another great example of Blake having a pov that differed from Justin’s, but that’s still not harassment. Or even supposedly gazing at her, again what?!! So when Blake finally makes her concerns known after the writers strike, it appears it never happened again and they walked on eggshells around her. Despite that, he was still in the basement, cut from promo etc. And then when she got bad press, it had to be a conspiracy. There really is no winning with someone like her. It had to be an impossible situation to navigate.

[Anonymous]

Something seems fishy to me when the flood of negative Instagram comments on Lively's hair launch or whatever involved user accounts that had no followers or no prior posts.

I think Wallace flooded social media with negative commentary about Lively, in the same way Heard was flooded, and that it generally turned public opinion against Lively in the same way it worked for Heard. Both of these women had negative personality traits that could easily be used against them, both had stuff out there that could be posted and made fun of. Abel was out there doing some of this work on her own, i.e., having "our digital side boost this [TikTok of some woman defending Baldoni] in the am." So they were boosting stories and pumping negatives at Lively. Meanwhile Abel was also saying they were using far more sophisticated techniques on social media than just using bots.

I also saw the complaint alleges at paras. 280-81 that Lively or her PR rep were checking in with each other and making sure they weren't doing the same against Baldoni & co. at some point - i.e., making sure they were not retaliating/planting stories so that they would have clean hands when the time came etc. So basically the flood of negatives coming from Abel/Wallace and co. were undefended, and maybe in some ways still are because of the lawsuit. And after a certain point, it doesn't matter, because everyone has read all the negative stuff and believes it, and believes that's what defines the case.

I think a lot will depend on what discovery is obtained from Wallace. Precisely what was he doing to earn the $75-$175K that he proposed to be paid for this work, and how much was he ultimately paid etc?

I don't think Sarowitz comes off well.