Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

So if some of the reason for all this is to see who gets to make the 2nd Hoover Ends with Us movie, does that 2nd book have same characters? If all had been merry, would it have meant both Justin and Blake would have been back or does book 2 just follow the female character from book 1 and Justin would not have been actor IN movie and only directing?

[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:I’m not saying this is true, but it makes a lot of sense:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8FogudV/


And if it is true, The NY Times was played.

You know what doesn't make a lot of sense? That lady's eyebrows. Or the concept of a person whose career is to "create content" on TikTok that amounts to mindless speculation based on... random Facebook posts she read?

But sure, yes, the NYT "got played." Let's go with that.

The NY Times definitely got played, that’s not really up for debate. But that’s the danger of basing an article on one sources who turns out to be not truthful. Oh well.

It's really up for debate. That's the purpose of this thread. Not just to rag on Lively lol. Lots of debate in this thread defending the NYT article as based on factual texts that they cited and printed. Even if they focused on the texts/comms that supported Lively, you can't say those aren't truthful. They're there in black and white, sorry ma'am.

Actually in the podcast, they acknowledge Justin’s claim that surrounding texts which were not included could give the published texts a different meaning.

Did they say why they didn’t include them?

And should they even be admitting to that?? That's basically Justin lawsuit. That they had all the text messages but purposefully excluded context to defame him. Let's say that's not enough for defamation. That admission is enough to wreck their reputations and that's simply will not go away.

From reading the context of the texts in Justin's claim, I am not sure any of the texts that were omitted significantly changed the meaning or gave a completely different context. A lot of the omitted texts were more about logistics. I didn't think they told a different story or created a false case compared to the full text chains. Whether any of it is sufficient is a different question.

+1, their argument is that there were a couple places where the context casts doubt on whether the PR people actually did certain things (like whether they planted a story or were just happy when a story ran without them having to plant it). Yes that might be exonerating in specific instances and if there is more context the NYT should print it and explain how it changes the meaning.

But it's not like the context reveals that Baldoni did not in fact hire a PR team and crisis manager to go after Lively in the press in order to get ahead of any potential harassment allegations. The texts are full of actual proof that they did this work, including hiring Jed Wallace to astroturf/seed social media with anti-Lively sentiment and stories, which is the biggest and most damning allegation. The texts explicitly credit the work that "Jed and his team" are doing on this front and celebrate the success of their efforts with helping turn internet sentiment against Lively. There is no additional context that undermines that narrative. That's what happened.

There's no defamation here. These people really wrote these texts, they largely mean what they say. Here and there someone might be using irony or sarcasm that doesn't get picked up without context, but there are too many examples for that to be the case with every single one. Like you really think Baldoni and his team texted back and forth about destroying Lively in the press for months without actually doing anything? No. The story was accurate with perhaps a couple places where additional context would make a specific incident less damning.

Baldoni filed the defamation suit as a PR move to cast doubt on the whole narrative. But the narrative is like 99.9% true with a small amount of inaccuracy that does not actually change what they did. Baldoni hired them to smear Lively in the press and make him look better in comparison, and they did that.

Assuming for the moment this is true, it is absolutely criminal to present it out of context. And the context is that he hired the crisis firm because Blake and Ryan were in the midst of a campaign to destroy his career.

There is still a lot of evidence to be seen but I think it will be quite difficult to prove that she was never uncomfortable on set and that her only intention in creating her list of uncomfortable situations and desire for action was to destroy his career. Even in the released clip, it is clear she was uncomfortable and trying to get him to touch her less. To say there was no context of discomfort on her behalf and that it was all an orchaestrated campaign from the beginning to destroy him and get the rights will really be an uphill battle.

“uncomfortable” is not sexual harassment. And what I saw in that clip and even Lively’s characterization of it was truly unprofessional behavior on her part. I can’t see any jury anywhere thinking that (checks notes) a fellow actor kissing you *during a romantic slow dancing scene* is assault.

Ok. I guess we'll have to wait and see if everyone agrees with you. I don't think her behavior in the clip is unprofessional. She looks uncomfortable and it seems like they have a bad working relationship. I'm not ready to say it's harassment, but the video (and that 2am voice memo from Justin) makes me inclined to withhold judgment until I have more info. It doesn't feel like it proves either of their versions of events.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not saying this is true, but it makes a lot of sense:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8FogudV/


And if it is true, The NY Times was played.

You know what doesn't make a lot of sense? That lady's eyebrows. Or the concept of a person whose career is to "create content" on TikTok that amounts to mindless speculation based on... random Facebook posts she read?

But sure, yes, the NYT "got played." Let's go with that.

The NY Times definitely got played, that’s not really up for debate. But that’s the danger of basing an article on one sources who turns out to be not truthful. Oh well.

It's really up for debate. That's the purpose of this thread. Not just to rag on Lively lol. Lots of debate in this thread defending the NYT article as based on factual texts that they cited and printed. Even if they focused on the texts/comms that supported Lively, you can't say those aren't truthful. They're there in black and white, sorry ma'am.

Actually in the podcast, they acknowledge Justin’s claim that surrounding texts which were not included could give the published texts a different meaning.

Did they say why they didn’t include them?

And should they even be admitting to that?? That's basically Justin lawsuit. That they had all the text messages but purposefully excluded context to defame him. Let's say that's not enough for defamation. That admission is enough to wreck their reputations and that's simply will not go away.

From reading the context of the texts in Justin's claim, I am not sure any of the texts that were omitted significantly changed the meaning or gave a completely different context. A lot of the omitted texts were more about logistics. I didn't think they told a different story or created a false case compared to the full text chains. Whether any of it is sufficient is a different question.

+1, their argument is that there were a couple places where the context casts doubt on whether the PR people actually did certain things (like whether they planted a story or were just happy when a story ran without them having to plant it). Yes that might be exonerating in specific instances and if there is more context the NYT should print it and explain how it changes the meaning.

But it's not like the context reveals that Baldoni did not in fact hire a PR team and crisis manager to go after Lively in the press in order to get ahead of any potential harassment allegations. The texts are full of actual proof that they did this work, including hiring Jed Wallace to astroturf/seed social media with anti-Lively sentiment and stories, which is the biggest and most damning allegation. The texts explicitly credit the work that "Jed and his team" are doing on this front and celebrate the success of their efforts with helping turn internet sentiment against Lively. There is no additional context that undermines that narrative. That's what happened.

There's no defamation here. These people really wrote these texts, they largely mean what they say. Here and there someone might be using irony or sarcasm that doesn't get picked up without context, but there are too many examples for that to be the case with every single one. Like you really think Baldoni and his team texted back and forth about destroying Lively in the press for months without actually doing anything? No. The story was accurate with perhaps a couple places where additional context would make a specific incident less damning.

Baldoni filed the defamation suit as a PR move to cast doubt on the whole narrative. But the narrative is like 99.9% true with a small amount of inaccuracy that does not actually change what they did. Baldoni hired them to smear Lively in the press and make him look better in comparison, and they did that.

Assuming for the moment this is true, it is absolutely criminal to present it out of context. And the context is that he hired the crisis firm because Blake and Ryan were in the midst of a campaign to destroy his career.

There is still a lot of evidence to be seen but I think it will be quite difficult to prove that she was never uncomfortable on set and that her only intention in creating her list of uncomfortable situations and desire for action was to destroy his career. Even in the released clip, it is clear she was uncomfortable and trying to get him to touch her less. To say there was no context of discomfort on her behalf and that it was all an orchaestrated campaign from the beginning to destroy him and get the rights will really be an uphill battle.

No, it is not clear that she was uncomfortable on set. My conclusion and that of most people here is the exact opposite. Baldoni releasing the footage with audio eviscerated Lively’s claims, and showed - I would argue objective - that she told a total lie about the “smelling good” interaction, which was a viral element of her sexual harassment allegation.

I think the theory that she and her husband wanted to yank the rights for the sequel from Baldoni are credible and make her IMO nutbar allegations coherent. We’ll see.

[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:I’m not saying this is true, but it makes a lot of sense:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8FogudV/


And if it is true, The NY Times was played.

You know what doesn't make a lot of sense? That lady's eyebrows. Or the concept of a person whose career is to "create content" on TikTok that amounts to mindless speculation based on... random Facebook posts she read?

But sure, yes, the NYT "got played." Let's go with that.

The NY Times definitely got played, that’s not really up for debate. But that’s the danger of basing an article on one sources who turns out to be not truthful. Oh well.

It's really up for debate. That's the purpose of this thread. Not just to rag on Lively lol. Lots of debate in this thread defending the NYT article as based on factual texts that they cited and printed. Even if they focused on the texts/comms that supported Lively, you can't say those aren't truthful. They're there in black and white, sorry ma'am.

Actually in the podcast, they acknowledge Justin’s claim that surrounding texts which were not included could give the published texts a different meaning.

Did they say why they didn’t include them?

And should they even be admitting to that?? That's basically Justin lawsuit. That they had all the text messages but purposefully excluded context to defame him. Let's say that's not enough for defamation. That admission is enough to wreck their reputations and that's simply will not go away.

From reading the context of the texts in Justin's claim, I am not sure any of the texts that were omitted significantly changed the meaning or gave a completely different context. A lot of the omitted texts were more about logistics. I didn't think they told a different story or created a false case compared to the full text chains. Whether any of it is sufficient is a different question.

+1, their argument is that there were a couple places where the context casts doubt on whether the PR people actually did certain things (like whether they planted a story or were just happy when a story ran without them having to plant it). Yes that might be exonerating in specific instances and if there is more context the NYT should print it and explain how it changes the meaning.

But it's not like the context reveals that Baldoni did not in fact hire a PR team and crisis manager to go after Lively in the press in order to get ahead of any potential harassment allegations. The texts are full of actual proof that they did this work, including hiring Jed Wallace to astroturf/seed social media with anti-Lively sentiment and stories, which is the biggest and most damning allegation. The texts explicitly credit the work that "Jed and his team" are doing on this front and celebrate the success of their efforts with helping turn internet sentiment against Lively. There is no additional context that undermines that narrative. That's what happened.

There's no defamation here. These people really wrote these texts, they largely mean what they say. Here and there someone might be using irony or sarcasm that doesn't get picked up without context, but there are too many examples for that to be the case with every single one. Like you really think Baldoni and his team texted back and forth about destroying Lively in the press for months without actually doing anything? No. The story was accurate with perhaps a couple places where additional context would make a specific incident less damning.

Baldoni filed the defamation suit as a PR move to cast doubt on the whole narrative. But the narrative is like 99.9% true with a small amount of inaccuracy that does not actually change what they did. Baldoni hired them to smear Lively in the press and make him look better in comparison, and they did that.

Assuming for the moment this is true, it is absolutely criminal to present it out of context. And the context is that he hired the crisis firm because Blake and Ryan were in the midst of a campaign to destroy his career.

There is still a lot of evidence to be seen but I think it will be quite difficult to prove that she was never uncomfortable on set and that her only intention in creating her list of uncomfortable situations and desire for action was to destroy his career. Even in the released clip, it is clear she was uncomfortable and trying to get him to touch her less. To say there was no context of discomfort on her behalf and that it was all an orchaestrated campaign from the beginning to destroy him and get the rights will really be an uphill battle.

“uncomfortable” is not sexual harassment. And what I saw in that clip and even Lively’s characterization of it was truly unprofessional behavior on her part. I can’t see any jury anywhere thinking that (checks notes) a fellow actor kissing you *during a romantic slow dancing scene* is assault.

Ok. I guess we'll have to wait and see if everyone agrees with you. I don't think her behavior in the clip is unprofessional. She looks uncomfortable and it seems like they have a bad working relationship. I'm not ready to say it's harassment, but the video (and that 2am voice memo from Justin) makes me inclined to withhold judgment until I have more info. It doesn't feel like it proves either of their versions of events.

Hmmmm. Someone keeps dancing on the 2 am voice note while refusing to indicate Lively wrote him a tome at 1:30 am. Cool.

[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:I’m not saying this is true, but it makes a lot of sense:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8FogudV/


And if it is true, The NY Times was played.

You know what doesn't make a lot of sense? That lady's eyebrows. Or the concept of a person whose career is to "create content" on TikTok that amounts to mindless speculation based on... random Facebook posts she read?

But sure, yes, the NYT "got played." Let's go with that.

The NY Times definitely got played, that’s not really up for debate. But that’s the danger of basing an article on one sources who turns out to be not truthful. Oh well.

It's really up for debate. That's the purpose of this thread. Not just to rag on Lively lol. Lots of debate in this thread defending the NYT article as based on factual texts that they cited and printed. Even if they focused on the texts/comms that supported Lively, you can't say those aren't truthful. They're there in black and white, sorry ma'am.

Actually in the podcast, they acknowledge Justin’s claim that surrounding texts which were not included could give the published texts a different meaning.

Did they say why they didn’t include them?

And should they even be admitting to that?? That's basically Justin lawsuit. That they had all the text messages but purposefully excluded context to defame him. Let's say that's not enough for defamation. That admission is enough to wreck their reputations and that's simply will not go away.

From reading the context of the texts in Justin's claim, I am not sure any of the texts that were omitted significantly changed the meaning or gave a completely different context. A lot of the omitted texts were more about logistics. I didn't think they told a different story or created a false case compared to the full text chains. Whether any of it is sufficient is a different question.

+1, their argument is that there were a couple places where the context casts doubt on whether the PR people actually did certain things (like whether they planted a story or were just happy when a story ran without them having to plant it). Yes that might be exonerating in specific instances and if there is more context the NYT should print it and explain how it changes the meaning.

But it's not like the context reveals that Baldoni did not in fact hire a PR team and crisis manager to go after Lively in the press in order to get ahead of any potential harassment allegations. The texts are full of actual proof that they did this work, including hiring Jed Wallace to astroturf/seed social media with anti-Lively sentiment and stories, which is the biggest and most damning allegation. The texts explicitly credit the work that "Jed and his team" are doing on this front and celebrate the success of their efforts with helping turn internet sentiment against Lively. There is no additional context that undermines that narrative. That's what happened.

There's no defamation here. These people really wrote these texts, they largely mean what they say. Here and there someone might be using irony or sarcasm that doesn't get picked up without context, but there are too many examples for that to be the case with every single one. Like you really think Baldoni and his team texted back and forth about destroying Lively in the press for months without actually doing anything? No. The story was accurate with perhaps a couple places where additional context would make a specific incident less damning.

Baldoni filed the defamation suit as a PR move to cast doubt on the whole narrative. But the narrative is like 99.9% true with a small amount of inaccuracy that does not actually change what they did. Baldoni hired them to smear Lively in the press and make him look better in comparison, and they did that.

Assuming for the moment this is true, it is absolutely criminal to present it out of context. And the context is that he hired the crisis firm because Blake and Ryan were in the midst of a campaign to destroy his career.

There is still a lot of evidence to be seen but I think it will be quite difficult to prove that she was never uncomfortable on set and that her only intention in creating her list of uncomfortable situations and desire for action was to destroy his career. Even in the released clip, it is clear she was uncomfortable and trying to get him to touch her less. To say there was no context of discomfort on her behalf and that it was all an orchaestrated campaign from the beginning to destroy him and get the rights will really be an uphill battle.

“uncomfortable” is not sexual harassment. And what I saw in that clip and even Lively’s characterization of it was truly unprofessional behavior on her part. I can’t see any jury anywhere thinking that (checks notes) a fellow actor kissing you *during a romantic slow dancing scene* is assault.

The harrassment comes from her claim of repeated incidents of ignoring her requests and knowingly making her uncomfortable. I don't know if it reaches the bar for harrassment as so much evidence isn't yet seen.

This wasn't written as a romantic scene. It was B roll filming without any choreography that just directed as slow dancing. They only shot they used in the film was their feet. It wasn't a choreographed romantic scence that was part of the plot or story. Typically kissing and physical intimacy should be pre arranged and approved in film now a days. Just like if he had groped her breast during the scene, he can't just say...but it was a slow dance and the movie plot is a romance between characters so I can touch her however I want. Improvising has to be agreed on. His claim is that she also improvised. They should release those clips too.

[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:I’m not saying this is true, but it makes a lot of sense:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8FogudV/


And if it is true, The NY Times was played.

You know what doesn't make a lot of sense? That lady's eyebrows. Or the concept of a person whose career is to "create content" on TikTok that amounts to mindless speculation based on... random Facebook posts she read?

But sure, yes, the NYT "got played." Let's go with that.

The NY Times definitely got played, that’s not really up for debate. But that’s the danger of basing an article on one sources who turns out to be not truthful. Oh well.

It's really up for debate. That's the purpose of this thread. Not just to rag on Lively lol. Lots of debate in this thread defending the NYT article as based on factual texts that they cited and printed. Even if they focused on the texts/comms that supported Lively, you can't say those aren't truthful. They're there in black and white, sorry ma'am.

Actually in the podcast, they acknowledge Justin’s claim that surrounding texts which were not included could give the published texts a different meaning.

Did they say why they didn’t include them?

And should they even be admitting to that?? That's basically Justin lawsuit. That they had all the text messages but purposefully excluded context to defame him. Let's say that's not enough for defamation. That admission is enough to wreck their reputations and that's simply will not go away.

From reading the context of the texts in Justin's claim, I am not sure any of the texts that were omitted significantly changed the meaning or gave a completely different context. A lot of the omitted texts were more about logistics. I didn't think they told a different story or created a false case compared to the full text chains. Whether any of it is sufficient is a different question.

+1, their argument is that there were a couple places where the context casts doubt on whether the PR people actually did certain things (like whether they planted a story or were just happy when a story ran without them having to plant it). Yes that might be exonerating in specific instances and if there is more context the NYT should print it and explain how it changes the meaning.

But it's not like the context reveals that Baldoni did not in fact hire a PR team and crisis manager to go after Lively in the press in order to get ahead of any potential harassment allegations. The texts are full of actual proof that they did this work, including hiring Jed Wallace to astroturf/seed social media with anti-Lively sentiment and stories, which is the biggest and most damning allegation. The texts explicitly credit the work that "Jed and his team" are doing on this front and celebrate the success of their efforts with helping turn internet sentiment against Lively. There is no additional context that undermines that narrative. That's what happened.

There's no defamation here. These people really wrote these texts, they largely mean what they say. Here and there someone might be using irony or sarcasm that doesn't get picked up without context, but there are too many examples for that to be the case with every single one. Like you really think Baldoni and his team texted back and forth about destroying Lively in the press for months without actually doing anything? No. The story was accurate with perhaps a couple places where additional context would make a specific incident less damning.

Baldoni filed the defamation suit as a PR move to cast doubt on the whole narrative. But the narrative is like 99.9% true with a small amount of inaccuracy that does not actually change what they did. Baldoni hired them to smear Lively in the press and make him look better in comparison, and they did that.

Assuming for the moment this is true, it is absolutely criminal to present it out of context. And the context is that he hired the crisis firm because Blake and Ryan were in the midst of a campaign to destroy his career.

There is still a lot of evidence to be seen but I think it will be quite difficult to prove that she was never uncomfortable on set and that her only intention in creating her list of uncomfortable situations and desire for action was to destroy his career. Even in the released clip, it is clear she was uncomfortable and trying to get him to touch her less. To say there was no context of discomfort on her behalf and that it was all an orchaestrated campaign from the beginning to destroy him and get the rights will really be an uphill battle.

“uncomfortable” is not sexual harassment. And what I saw in that clip and even Lively’s characterization of it was truly unprofessional behavior on her part. I can’t see any jury anywhere thinking that (checks notes) a fellow actor kissing you *during a romantic slow dancing scene* is assault.

The harrassment comes from her claim of repeated incidents of ignoring her requests and knowingly making her uncomfortable. I don't know if it reaches the bar for harrassment as so much evidence isn't yet seen.

This wasn't written as a romantic scene. It was B roll filming without any choreography that just directed as slow dancing. They only shot they used in the film was their feet. It wasn't a choreographed romantic scence that was part of the plot or story. Typically kissing and physical intimacy should be pre arranged and approved in film now a days. Just like if he had groped her breast during the scene, he can't just say...but it was a slow dance and the movie plot is a romance between characters so I can touch her however I want. Improvising has to be agreed on. His claim is that she also improvised. They should release those clips too.

There is nothing to indicate that he’s holding back footage. Your post is odd. There’s only one side trying to clamp down on public releases - Lively’s.

[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:I’m not saying this is true, but it makes a lot of sense:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8FogudV/


And if it is true, The NY Times was played.

You know what doesn't make a lot of sense? That lady's eyebrows. Or the concept of a person whose career is to "create content" on TikTok that amounts to mindless speculation based on... random Facebook posts she read?

But sure, yes, the NYT "got played." Let's go with that.

The NY Times definitely got played, that’s not really up for debate. But that’s the danger of basing an article on one sources who turns out to be not truthful. Oh well.

It's really up for debate. That's the purpose of this thread. Not just to rag on Lively lol. Lots of debate in this thread defending the NYT article as based on factual texts that they cited and printed. Even if they focused on the texts/comms that supported Lively, you can't say those aren't truthful. They're there in black and white, sorry ma'am.

Actually in the podcast, they acknowledge Justin’s claim that surrounding texts which were not included could give the published texts a different meaning.

Did they say why they didn’t include them?

And should they even be admitting to that?? That's basically Justin lawsuit. That they had all the text messages but purposefully excluded context to defame him. Let's say that's not enough for defamation. That admission is enough to wreck their reputations and that's simply will not go away.

From reading the context of the texts in Justin's claim, I am not sure any of the texts that were omitted significantly changed the meaning or gave a completely different context. A lot of the omitted texts were more about logistics. I didn't think they told a different story or created a false case compared to the full text chains. Whether any of it is sufficient is a different question.

+1, their argument is that there were a couple places where the context casts doubt on whether the PR people actually did certain things (like whether they planted a story or were just happy when a story ran without them having to plant it). Yes that might be exonerating in specific instances and if there is more context the NYT should print it and explain how it changes the meaning.

But it's not like the context reveals that Baldoni did not in fact hire a PR team and crisis manager to go after Lively in the press in order to get ahead of any potential harassment allegations. The texts are full of actual proof that they did this work, including hiring Jed Wallace to astroturf/seed social media with anti-Lively sentiment and stories, which is the biggest and most damning allegation. The texts explicitly credit the work that "Jed and his team" are doing on this front and celebrate the success of their efforts with helping turn internet sentiment against Lively. There is no additional context that undermines that narrative. That's what happened.

There's no defamation here. These people really wrote these texts, they largely mean what they say. Here and there someone might be using irony or sarcasm that doesn't get picked up without context, but there are too many examples for that to be the case with every single one. Like you really think Baldoni and his team texted back and forth about destroying Lively in the press for months without actually doing anything? No. The story was accurate with perhaps a couple places where additional context would make a specific incident less damning.

Baldoni filed the defamation suit as a PR move to cast doubt on the whole narrative. But the narrative is like 99.9% true with a small amount of inaccuracy that does not actually change what they did. Baldoni hired them to smear Lively in the press and make him look better in comparison, and they did that.

Assuming for the moment this is true, it is absolutely criminal to present it out of context. And the context is that he hired the crisis firm because Blake and Ryan were in the midst of a campaign to destroy his career.

There is still a lot of evidence to be seen but I think it will be quite difficult to prove that she was never uncomfortable on set and that her only intention in creating her list of uncomfortable situations and desire for action was to destroy his career. Even in the released clip, it is clear she was uncomfortable and trying to get him to touch her less. To say there was no context of discomfort on her behalf and that it was all an orchaestrated campaign from the beginning to destroy him and get the rights will really be an uphill battle.

“uncomfortable” is not sexual harassment. And what I saw in that clip and even Lively’s characterization of it was truly unprofessional behavior on her part. I can’t see any jury anywhere thinking that (checks notes) a fellow actor kissing you *during a romantic slow dancing scene* is assault.

The harrassment comes from her claim of repeated incidents of ignoring her requests and knowingly making her uncomfortable. I don't know if it reaches the bar for harrassment as so much evidence isn't yet seen.

This wasn't written as a romantic scene. It was B roll filming without any choreography that just directed as slow dancing. They only shot they used in the film was their feet. It wasn't a choreographed romantic scence that was part of the plot or story. Typically kissing and physical intimacy should be pre arranged and approved in film now a days. Just like if he had groped her breast during the scene, he can't just say...but it was a slow dance and the movie plot is a romance between characters so I can touch her however I want. Improvising has to be agreed on. His claim is that she also improvised. They should release those clips too.

Maybe it was, when Justin sat down with the intimacy coordinator. Lively refused to attend that meeting.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not saying this is true, but it makes a lot of sense:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8FogudV/


And if it is true, The NY Times was played.

You know what doesn't make a lot of sense? That lady's eyebrows. Or the concept of a person whose career is to "create content" on TikTok that amounts to mindless speculation based on... random Facebook posts she read?

But sure, yes, the NYT "got played." Let's go with that.

The NY Times definitely got played, that’s not really up for debate. But that’s the danger of basing an article on one sources who turns out to be not truthful. Oh well.

It's really up for debate. That's the purpose of this thread. Not just to rag on Lively lol. Lots of debate in this thread defending the NYT article as based on factual texts that they cited and printed. Even if they focused on the texts/comms that supported Lively, you can't say those aren't truthful. They're there in black and white, sorry ma'am.

Actually in the podcast, they acknowledge Justin’s claim that surrounding texts which were not included could give the published texts a different meaning.

Did they say why they didn’t include them?

And should they even be admitting to that?? That's basically Justin lawsuit. That they had all the text messages but purposefully excluded context to defame him. Let's say that's not enough for defamation. That admission is enough to wreck their reputations and that's simply will not go away.

From reading the context of the texts in Justin's claim, I am not sure any of the texts that were omitted significantly changed the meaning or gave a completely different context. A lot of the omitted texts were more about logistics. I didn't think they told a different story or created a false case compared to the full text chains. Whether any of it is sufficient is a different question.

+1, their argument is that there were a couple places where the context casts doubt on whether the PR people actually did certain things (like whether they planted a story or were just happy when a story ran without them having to plant it). Yes that might be exonerating in specific instances and if there is more context the NYT should print it and explain how it changes the meaning.

But it's not like the context reveals that Baldoni did not in fact hire a PR team and crisis manager to go after Lively in the press in order to get ahead of any potential harassment allegations. The texts are full of actual proof that they did this work, including hiring Jed Wallace to astroturf/seed social media with anti-Lively sentiment and stories, which is the biggest and most damning allegation. The texts explicitly credit the work that "Jed and his team" are doing on this front and celebrate the success of their efforts with helping turn internet sentiment against Lively. There is no additional context that undermines that narrative. That's what happened.

There's no defamation here. These people really wrote these texts, they largely mean what they say. Here and there someone might be using irony or sarcasm that doesn't get picked up without context, but there are too many examples for that to be the case with every single one. Like you really think Baldoni and his team texted back and forth about destroying Lively in the press for months without actually doing anything? No. The story was accurate with perhaps a couple places where additional context would make a specific incident less damning.

Baldoni filed the defamation suit as a PR move to cast doubt on the whole narrative. But the narrative is like 99.9% true with a small amount of inaccuracy that does not actually change what they did. Baldoni hired them to smear Lively in the press and make him look better in comparison, and they did that.

Assuming for the moment this is true, it is absolutely criminal to present it out of context. And the context is that he hired the crisis firm because Blake and Ryan were in the midst of a campaign to destroy his career.

There is still a lot of evidence to be seen but I think it will be quite difficult to prove that she was never uncomfortable on set and that her only intention in creating her list of uncomfortable situations and desire for action was to destroy his career. Even in the released clip, it is clear she was uncomfortable and trying to get him to touch her less. To say there was no context of discomfort on her behalf and that it was all an orchaestrated campaign from the beginning to destroy him and get the rights will really be an uphill battle.

“uncomfortable” is not sexual harassment. And what I saw in that clip and even Lively’s characterization of it was truly unprofessional behavior on her part. I can’t see any jury anywhere thinking that (checks notes) a fellow actor kissing you *during a romantic slow dancing scene* is assault.

The harrassment comes from her claim of repeated incidents of ignoring her requests and knowingly making her uncomfortable. I don't know if it reaches the bar for harrassment as so much evidence isn't yet seen.

This wasn't written as a romantic scene. It was B roll filming without any choreography that just directed as slow dancing. They only shot they used in the film was their feet. It wasn't a choreographed romantic scence that was part of the plot or story. Typically kissing and physical intimacy should be pre arranged and approved in film now a days. Just like if he had groped her breast during the scene, he can't just say...but it was a slow dance and the movie plot is a romance between characters so I can touch her however I want. Improvising has to be agreed on. His claim is that she also improvised. They should release those clips too.

Maybe it was, when Justin sat down with the intimacy coordinator. Lively refused to attend that meeting.

I would be interested in the date when the conversation took place where Lively said she would wait to meet with her once on set. This was about a meeting before they were on set and given Lively gave birth around the beginning of February, I am curious as to the dates of those texts. The texts are included in Baldoni's complaint but without any dates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not saying this is true, but it makes a lot of sense:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8FogudV/


And if it is true, The NY Times was played.

You know what doesn't make a lot of sense? That lady's eyebrows. Or the concept of a person whose career is to "create content" on TikTok that amounts to mindless speculation based on... random Facebook posts she read?

But sure, yes, the NYT "got played." Let's go with that.

The NY Times definitely got played, that’s not really up for debate. But that’s the danger of basing an article on one sources who turns out to be not truthful. Oh well.

It's really up for debate. That's the purpose of this thread. Not just to rag on Lively lol. Lots of debate in this thread defending the NYT article as based on factual texts that they cited and printed. Even if they focused on the texts/comms that supported Lively, you can't say those aren't truthful. They're there in black and white, sorry ma'am.

Actually in the podcast, they acknowledge Justin’s claim that surrounding texts which were not included could give the published texts a different meaning.

Did they say why they didn’t include them?

And should they even be admitting to that?? That's basically Justin lawsuit. That they had all the text messages but purposefully excluded context to defame him. Let's say that's not enough for defamation. That admission is enough to wreck their reputations and that's simply will not go away.

From reading the context of the texts in Justin's claim, I am not sure any of the texts that were omitted significantly changed the meaning or gave a completely different context. A lot of the omitted texts were more about logistics. I didn't think they told a different story or created a false case compared to the full text chains. Whether any of it is sufficient is a different question.

+1, their argument is that there were a couple places where the context casts doubt on whether the PR people actually did certain things (like whether they planted a story or were just happy when a story ran without them having to plant it). Yes that might be exonerating in specific instances and if there is more context the NYT should print it and explain how it changes the meaning.

But it's not like the context reveals that Baldoni did not in fact hire a PR team and crisis manager to go after Lively in the press in order to get ahead of any potential harassment allegations. The texts are full of actual proof that they did this work, including hiring Jed Wallace to astroturf/seed social media with anti-Lively sentiment and stories, which is the biggest and most damning allegation. The texts explicitly credit the work that "Jed and his team" are doing on this front and celebrate the success of their efforts with helping turn internet sentiment against Lively. There is no additional context that undermines that narrative. That's what happened.

There's no defamation here. These people really wrote these texts, they largely mean what they say. Here and there someone might be using irony or sarcasm that doesn't get picked up without context, but there are too many examples for that to be the case with every single one. Like you really think Baldoni and his team texted back and forth about destroying Lively in the press for months without actually doing anything? No. The story was accurate with perhaps a couple places where additional context would make a specific incident less damning.

Baldoni filed the defamation suit as a PR move to cast doubt on the whole narrative. But the narrative is like 99.9% true with a small amount of inaccuracy that does not actually change what they did. Baldoni hired them to smear Lively in the press and make him look better in comparison, and they did that.

Assuming for the moment this is true, it is absolutely criminal to present it out of context. And the context is that he hired the crisis firm because Blake and Ryan were in the midst of a campaign to destroy his career.

+10000
This is context that should have been included. Which they could have, if they’d bothered to get Justin’s side of the story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not saying this is true, but it makes a lot of sense:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8FogudV/


And if it is true, The NY Times was played.

You know what doesn't make a lot of sense? That lady's eyebrows. Or the concept of a person whose career is to "create content" on TikTok that amounts to mindless speculation based on... random Facebook posts she read?

But sure, yes, the NYT "got played." Let's go with that.

The NY Times definitely got played, that’s not really up for debate. But that’s the danger of basing an article on one sources who turns out to be not truthful. Oh well.

It's really up for debate. That's the purpose of this thread. Not just to rag on Lively lol. Lots of debate in this thread defending the NYT article as based on factual texts that they cited and printed. Even if they focused on the texts/comms that supported Lively, you can't say those aren't truthful. They're there in black and white, sorry ma'am.

Actually in the podcast, they acknowledge Justin’s claim that surrounding texts which were not included could give the published texts a different meaning.

Did they say why they didn’t include them?

And should they even be admitting to that?? That's basically Justin lawsuit. That they had all the text messages but purposefully excluded context to defame him. Let's say that's not enough for defamation. That admission is enough to wreck their reputations and that's simply will not go away.

From reading the context of the texts in Justin's claim, I am not sure any of the texts that were omitted significantly changed the meaning or gave a completely different context. A lot of the omitted texts were more about logistics. I didn't think they told a different story or created a false case compared to the full text chains. Whether any of it is sufficient is a different question.

+1, their argument is that there were a couple places where the context casts doubt on whether the PR people actually did certain things (like whether they planted a story or were just happy when a story ran without them having to plant it). Yes that might be exonerating in specific instances and if there is more context the NYT should print it and explain how it changes the meaning.

But it's not like the context reveals that Baldoni did not in fact hire a PR team and crisis manager to go after Lively in the press in order to get ahead of any potential harassment allegations. The texts are full of actual proof that they did this work, including hiring Jed Wallace to astroturf/seed social media with anti-Lively sentiment and stories, which is the biggest and most damning allegation. The texts explicitly credit the work that "Jed and his team" are doing on this front and celebrate the success of their efforts with helping turn internet sentiment against Lively. There is no additional context that undermines that narrative. That's what happened.

There's no defamation here. These people really wrote these texts, they largely mean what they say. Here and there someone might be using irony or sarcasm that doesn't get picked up without context, but there are too many examples for that to be the case with every single one. Like you really think Baldoni and his team texted back and forth about destroying Lively in the press for months without actually doing anything? No. The story was accurate with perhaps a couple places where additional context would make a specific incident less damning.

Baldoni filed the defamation suit as a PR move to cast doubt on the whole narrative. But the narrative is like 99.9% true with a small amount of inaccuracy that does not actually change what they did. Baldoni hired them to smear Lively in the press and make him look better in comparison, and they did that.

Assuming for the moment this is true, it is absolutely criminal to present it out of context. And the context is that he hired the crisis firm because Blake and Ryan were in the midst of a campaign to destroy his career.

+10000
This is context that should have been included. Which they could have, if they’d bothered to get Justin’s side of the story

Another +10000. The timeline supports the idea that Baldoni only hired the PR firm after the leaks and nonsense started about the set, after Lively orchestrated the mass unfollowing of Baldoni on social channels by everyone affiliated with the film. It also thwarts Lively’s retaliation claim - Baldoni and the studio had the sequel rights and wanted for the film to succeed, so having a PR firm support the success of the film, tamping down on the firehose of crap BL and RR were shooting at him, makes financial sense.

Hoover, BL and RR have turned off comments and/or deleted their social media. I’m interested in seeing what kinds of communications existed between them and between smaller fry on set about coordinating against Baldoni. I think BL has ruined her acting career with these antics.

[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:I’m not saying this is true, but it makes a lot of sense:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8FogudV/


And if it is true, The NY Times was played.

You know what doesn't make a lot of sense? That lady's eyebrows. Or the concept of a person whose career is to "create content" on TikTok that amounts to mindless speculation based on... random Facebook posts she read?

But sure, yes, the NYT "got played." Let's go with that.

The NY Times definitely got played, that’s not really up for debate. But that’s the danger of basing an article on one sources who turns out to be not truthful. Oh well.

It's really up for debate. That's the purpose of this thread. Not just to rag on Lively lol. Lots of debate in this thread defending the NYT article as based on factual texts that they cited and printed. Even if they focused on the texts/comms that supported Lively, you can't say those aren't truthful. They're there in black and white, sorry ma'am.

Actually in the podcast, they acknowledge Justin’s claim that surrounding texts which were not included could give the published texts a different meaning.

Did they say why they didn’t include them?

And should they even be admitting to that?? That's basically Justin lawsuit. That they had all the text messages but purposefully excluded context to defame him. Let's say that's not enough for defamation. That admission is enough to wreck their reputations and that's simply will not go away.

From reading the context of the texts in Justin's claim, I am not sure any of the texts that were omitted significantly changed the meaning or gave a completely different context. A lot of the omitted texts were more about logistics. I didn't think they told a different story or created a false case compared to the full text chains. Whether any of it is sufficient is a different question.

+1, their argument is that there were a couple places where the context casts doubt on whether the PR people actually did certain things (like whether they planted a story or were just happy when a story ran without them having to plant it). Yes that might be exonerating in specific instances and if there is more context the NYT should print it and explain how it changes the meaning.

But it's not like the context reveals that Baldoni did not in fact hire a PR team and crisis manager to go after Lively in the press in order to get ahead of any potential harassment allegations. The texts are full of actual proof that they did this work, including hiring Jed Wallace to astroturf/seed social media with anti-Lively sentiment and stories, which is the biggest and most damning allegation. The texts explicitly credit the work that "Jed and his team" are doing on this front and celebrate the success of their efforts with helping turn internet sentiment against Lively. There is no additional context that undermines that narrative. That's what happened.

There's no defamation here. These people really wrote these texts, they largely mean what they say. Here and there someone might be using irony or sarcasm that doesn't get picked up without context, but there are too many examples for that to be the case with every single one. Like you really think Baldoni and his team texted back and forth about destroying Lively in the press for months without actually doing anything? No. The story was accurate with perhaps a couple places where additional context would make a specific incident less damning.

Baldoni filed the defamation suit as a PR move to cast doubt on the whole narrative. But the narrative is like 99.9% true with a small amount of inaccuracy that does not actually change what they did. Baldoni hired them to smear Lively in the press and make him look better in comparison, and they did that.

Assuming for the moment this is true, it is absolutely criminal to present it out of context. And the context is that he hired the crisis firm because Blake and Ryan were in the midst of a campaign to destroy his career.

There is still a lot of evidence to be seen but I think it will be quite difficult to prove that she was never uncomfortable on set and that her only intention in creating her list of uncomfortable situations and desire for action was to destroy his career. Even in the released clip, it is clear she was uncomfortable and trying to get him to touch her less. To say there was no context of discomfort on her behalf and that it was all an orchaestrated campaign from the beginning to destroy him and get the rights will really be an uphill battle.

“uncomfortable” is not sexual harassment. And what I saw in that clip and even Lively’s characterization of it was truly unprofessional behavior on her part. I can’t see any jury anywhere thinking that (checks notes) a fellow actor kissing you *during a romantic slow dancing scene* is assault.

Ok. I guess we'll have to wait and see if everyone agrees with you. I don't think her behavior in the clip is unprofessional. She looks uncomfortable and it seems like they have a bad working relationship. I'm not ready to say it's harassment, but the video (and that 2am voice memo from Justin) makes me inclined to withhold judgment until I have more info. It doesn't feel like it proves either of their versions of events.

Yeah - she is ACTING. she shouldn’t look uncomfortable. she’s not doing her job. it’s a dance scene with a kiss. It’s not the r*pe scene from Last Tango in Paris.

[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:I’m not saying this is true, but it makes a lot of sense:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8FogudV/


And if it is true, The NY Times was played.

You know what doesn't make a lot of sense? That lady's eyebrows. Or the concept of a person whose career is to "create content" on TikTok that amounts to mindless speculation based on... random Facebook posts she read?

But sure, yes, the NYT "got played." Let's go with that.

The NY Times definitely got played, that’s not really up for debate. But that’s the danger of basing an article on one sources who turns out to be not truthful. Oh well.

It's really up for debate. That's the purpose of this thread. Not just to rag on Lively lol. Lots of debate in this thread defending the NYT article as based on factual texts that they cited and printed. Even if they focused on the texts/comms that supported Lively, you can't say those aren't truthful. They're there in black and white, sorry ma'am.

Actually in the podcast, they acknowledge Justin’s claim that surrounding texts which were not included could give the published texts a different meaning.

Did they say why they didn’t include them?

And should they even be admitting to that?? That's basically Justin lawsuit. That they had all the text messages but purposefully excluded context to defame him. Let's say that's not enough for defamation. That admission is enough to wreck their reputations and that's simply will not go away.

From reading the context of the texts in Justin's claim, I am not sure any of the texts that were omitted significantly changed the meaning or gave a completely different context. A lot of the omitted texts were more about logistics. I didn't think they told a different story or created a false case compared to the full text chains. Whether any of it is sufficient is a different question.

+1, their argument is that there were a couple places where the context casts doubt on whether the PR people actually did certain things (like whether they planted a story or were just happy when a story ran without them having to plant it). Yes that might be exonerating in specific instances and if there is more context the NYT should print it and explain how it changes the meaning.

But it's not like the context reveals that Baldoni did not in fact hire a PR team and crisis manager to go after Lively in the press in order to get ahead of any potential harassment allegations. The texts are full of actual proof that they did this work, including hiring Jed Wallace to astroturf/seed social media with anti-Lively sentiment and stories, which is the biggest and most damning allegation. The texts explicitly credit the work that "Jed and his team" are doing on this front and celebrate the success of their efforts with helping turn internet sentiment against Lively. There is no additional context that undermines that narrative. That's what happened.

There's no defamation here. These people really wrote these texts, they largely mean what they say. Here and there someone might be using irony or sarcasm that doesn't get picked up without context, but there are too many examples for that to be the case with every single one. Like you really think Baldoni and his team texted back and forth about destroying Lively in the press for months without actually doing anything? No. The story was accurate with perhaps a couple places where additional context would make a specific incident less damning.

Baldoni filed the defamation suit as a PR move to cast doubt on the whole narrative. But the narrative is like 99.9% true with a small amount of inaccuracy that does not actually change what they did. Baldoni hired them to smear Lively in the press and make him look better in comparison, and they did that.

Assuming for the moment this is true, it is absolutely criminal to present it out of context. And the context is that he hired the crisis firm because Blake and Ryan were in the midst of a campaign to destroy his career.

There is still a lot of evidence to be seen but I think it will be quite difficult to prove that she was never uncomfortable on set and that her only intention in creating her list of uncomfortable situations and desire for action was to destroy his career. Even in the released clip, it is clear she was uncomfortable and trying to get him to touch her less. To say there was no context of discomfort on her behalf and that it was all an orchaestrated campaign from the beginning to destroy him and get the rights will really be an uphill battle.

“uncomfortable” is not sexual harassment. And what I saw in that clip and even Lively’s characterization of it was truly unprofessional behavior on her part. I can’t see any jury anywhere thinking that (checks notes) a fellow actor kissing you *during a romantic slow dancing scene* is assault.

The harrassment comes from her claim of repeated incidents of ignoring her requests and knowingly making her uncomfortable. I don't know if it reaches the bar for harrassment as so much evidence isn't yet seen.

This wasn't written as a romantic scene. It was B roll filming without any choreography that just directed as slow dancing. They only shot they used in the film was their feet. It wasn't a choreographed romantic scence that was part of the plot or story. Typically kissing and physical intimacy should be pre arranged and approved in film now a days. Just like if he had groped her breast during the scene, he can't just say...but it was a slow dance and the movie plot is a romance between characters so I can touch her however I want. Improvising has to be agreed on. His claim is that she also improvised. They should release those clips too.

They only used the feet because she was such a disaster acting the scene. Acting like what he did was objectively wrong is just nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster has a point that the woman always seems to be on the losing end of these kinds of controversies.
Here though, BL filed first and my doing that is opening herself up to people picking sides. People are reacting to what she said/he said, and now public. It is human nature.
Second, did she learn anyting from the recent Heard case, which was a monstrosity. And note that Depp sued HER for defamation (after she published a generic op ed).
Where were BL and RR PR people in all this? This was dumb dumb dumb. Over some bad PR she perceived an no one else cared. So she thought it would be better to tee up WW3 and force people to look at all her text with JB, her past, etc, and take sides?

+1. she got everything she wanted and still wasn’t happy. she wanted more credit and to punish Baldoni. The theory that she was trying to get the rights from Hoover actually does not sound that far fetched.

Alternatively she was harassed throughout the filming of this movie and it only stopped when she asked Baldoni and Wayfarer to sign a document promising that she could have an intimacy coordinator with her at all times and to prevent her from every being alone with Baldoni or Heath again, and to also promise not to retaliate against her for raising these issues. And then they hired a crisis management team to ruin her reputation so that if she ever publicized these allegations, no one would believe her.

You'd rather believe an internet conspiracy theory that this whole thing is a long con to gain the rights to book that isn't even very good so she can make a moderately successful movie even though she's already rich AF and is developing a movie with Richard Gere and Lin-Manuel Miranda right now? Does that really make sense?

Maybe it's literally just what she says and she was harassed and then her harasser smeared her in the press and she sued because she didn't want to be taken advantage of like that.

I think Baldoni has make a very strong showing that her claims of “harassment” were all in her head. And her conduct that triggered Baldoni’s PR campaign was *not* her (spurious) complaint earlier but her conduct in publicly humiliating him during the film marketing and premiere.

And remember, one main incident in the story is her outsized reaction to having her edits on the script rejected. her whole demented “Khaleesi” rant was triggered because she desperately wanted to be in the creative/producer role. So yes, I do think it is entirely possible she was motivated at least in part by getting the movie rights.

Has he shown that though? At all? Here in the very early stages of these lawsuits when (to my knowledge) not a single witness has been deposed and the only things the public knows about what happened are their two competing narratives, some text messages, and a single piece of footage which can be used to back up both of their narratives but doesn't really prove either?

I don't know if he harassed her but neither do you. Why are you so eager to declare an outcome in a case that has barely begun and about which you know next to nothing? Why is this so important to you?

why is it so important to you?

The fact of the matter is, it is actually rare for a defendant to have evidence that casts SO much doubt on the plaintiff’s claims. the dance scene is the main one. The texts leading up to the “khaleesi” text and voicemail another one. There is no documentary evidence on the OB-GYN scene but I found the Baldoni complaint to be very persuasive (especially Lively’s ridiculous assertion that Baldoni hired a random friend to play the OB to gawk at her crotch.)

[Anonymous]

Eh I can say she was probably uncomfortable with that scene, but I don't think it's because of harassment but just the nature of the scene

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eh I can say she was probably uncomfortable with that scene, but I don't think it's because of harassment but just the nature of the scene

This makes no sense because it's such a light, normal scene.