Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt Baldoni much cares whether he actually wins his lawsuits; he's just trying to get his version of events out in the open which it seems he is accomplishing. His career and livelihood is on the line in a way that Blake Lively's isn't. She'll be fine either way (even if she never gets another film role she's still married to a billionaire, besties with another billionaire, and has other ventures). He might never get work again if he didn't fight back.

I wonder if Blake’s marriage will be fine. I think it possible that much of what apppears to be ginned up in her complaint was likely present by her to Ryan as fact.

Didn’t you already try to take a poll on this? Stop obsessing.

We have Blake supporters literally posting the same thing dozens of times, we can certainly discuss this more than once. Someone said Blake would be fine. Maybe not so fine if her marriage collapses because of this. If she lied to Ryan about sexual harassment, might explain her irrational attachment to what is a clearly doomed lawsuit.

Aren't you worried about Baldonis marriage? Who wants to be married to a sexual harasser. Nobody ever talks about his poor wife.

+1 even if Baldoni is not found to have harassed Lively, the involves him talking on set about his sex life, his wife's birth experience, his porn addiction, and a situation when Baldoni passed off a woman he was dating to Jamey Heath. He may or may not have harassed Lively, I don't know, but there is a strong ick factor coming off that guy.

I also think it's fascinating that Baldoni has built his entire public persona around being a male feminist who is sensitive to women and their experience, but his his defense and especially his defense lawyer are sort of the opposite of that. I don't see how he reconciles it.

I think his career is toast and I wouldn't be surprised if his marriage is on the rocks.

He had a podcast where he already was talking about all this stuff. I think his wife is aware he’s a sharer.

You think Ryan doesn’t know and trust his wife? So many fantasies here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt Baldoni much cares whether he actually wins his lawsuits; he's just trying to get his version of events out in the open which it seems he is accomplishing. His career and livelihood is on the line in a way that Blake Lively's isn't. She'll be fine either way (even if she never gets another film role she's still married to a billionaire, besties with another billionaire, and has other ventures). He might never get work again if he didn't fight back.

I wonder if Blake’s marriage will be fine. I think it possible that much of what apppears to be ginned up in her complaint was likely present by her to Ryan as fact.

Didn’t you already try to take a poll on this? Stop obsessing.

We have Blake supporters literally posting the same thing dozens of times, we can certainly discuss this more than once. Someone said Blake would be fine. Maybe not so fine if her marriage collapses because of this. If she lied to Ryan about sexual harassment, might explain her irrational attachment to what is a clearly doomed lawsuit.

Aren't you worried about Baldonis marriage? Who wants to be married to a sexual harasser. Nobody ever talks about his poor wife.

Since it’s clear that Blake’s lawsuit is premised on lies, no. I do feel bad that she had to deal with her husband losing control of his movie to someone with a narcissistic personality disorder. Sitting in the basement on premiere night likely wasn’t too much fun.

Well maybe she will divorce the unemployed loser.

Why would she? Looks like he’s about to come in to a lot of money.

Let’s circle back in 6 months to a year.

[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:Any chance a judge approves the gag order? Can anyone here with legal insight provide some clarity?

The are asking for both a protective order (that's what people are referring to as the "gag order") and a hearing to discuss appropriate conduct of counsel moving forward. I can't find a copy of their motion online though so I'm not sure exactly what the are asking the protective order to cover.

They'll get the hearing, that's an easy one and could be rolled into other preliminary hearings the judge might schedule as well. I would expect the judge at the hearing to lecture attorneys on both sides regarding communications to the press, not just Baldoni's lawyers.

I do think there are some things that Baldoni's lawyer has either released or is proposing releasing that the court would consider issuing a PO against. For instance I think it's highly likely the judge could issue a PO preventing Baldoni from releasing footage from the birth scene, where even if you go by Baldoni's complaint, the most Lively was wearing was a pair of underwear briefs on the bottom, and her legs were up in stirrups. That would be an easy one. I am less sure about how the judge would treat other requests for nondisclosure, of stuff like texts/emails between the parties. A lot of it is already in the complaints, I don't know how much else there even is. The judge will have to weight the potentially prejudicial or damaging impact of any potential disclosure against Baldoni's right to defend himself in the court of public opinion. And I don't know if Lively is asking for a blanket PO (unlikely to get) or something more targeted, which is more likely to be successful.

I know the press has a lot of protections, but do you think his case against the New York Times has legitimacy? They left out some key texts. e.g. Two people on his team said there was so much ammo against Justin when it came to the sexual harassment claims, but they left out a part where they both said that those accusations weren't true.

I would be pretty surprised if his NYT suit makes it past summary judgment. The only reservation I have is that recent big settlement by ABC news with Trump, which also surprised me but in retrospect I think they did it to avoid litigation that could go to the Supreme Court and potentially overturn important precedent (Sullivan). So that gives me pause and makes me wonder if we are just in a different era. However, that was Trump as plaintiff and the odds of it going to the SC are high and he appointed half the justices. I don't think Baldoni v. NYT is going that route.

In order to prove defamation, he has to prove "actual malice." He has to prove that they published something that was intentionally misleading with the specific goal of hurting Baldoni. I think this will be virtually impossible for a bunch of reasons -- the piece actually has multiple bylines and it would be hard to prove they collaborated to take Baldoni down, the NYT's fact checking process is pretty rigorous and they will have documentation of everything, and his argument is basically that they failed to provide full context to the allegation but they will simply argue that they reported on Lively's complaint and the allegations they had at the time, and then later reported on Baldoni's complaint and his counter-allegations. News orgs are not required to hold stories until every bit of information is available before reporting.

The NYT has also said they plan to vigorously defend in the case, so that weighs against a potential settlement. I don't think Baldoni has much of a case on the law here. I do wonder what a decisive loss in the NYT case does with regards to his battle against Lively and Reynolds. It won't help, but I don't know how much it will hurt.

Am I understanding correctly that you’re saying if the texts provided to them were edited/incomplete, then they could be shielded from liability by relying on those texts? In other words, they didn’t need to investigate whether those texts were complete or edited before reporting their story? If so, that’s kind of unfortunate because they essentially amplified edited/incomplete texts to present a completely different story than the unedited/complete texts would show! I feel like the due diligence standards should be higher for New York Times journalists…

If they verified the texts were real, no, I don't think they are legally required to ensure they have every single text in a text chain.

Also, even though some of the meaning of specific texts was changed when taken out of context, the broad outlines of what they reported was true -- Baldoni hired a PR firm to plant stories about Lively online in order to undermine her reputation in case she came forward with details about the alleged harassment on set. The context that has since been provided doesn't challenge any of that. It just puts some of the comments in the texts into gentler framing.

I think it's going to be near impossible for Baldoni to prove the NYT intentionally mislead the public with this story because he did actually do what he is accused of doing in terms of the PR story -- he hired the firm specifically to turn public sentiment against Lively. Sure, he'll argue he did that because the harassment allegations are false and he was getting ahead of that story. That's fine and the NYT has reported on his argument as well. But those texts were not made up and the story itself is still accurate even if additional context has come to light.

He basically has no case here.

Failing to provide context isn't libel against anyone.

Failing to provide context against a public figure will be laughed out of court as libel.

PP here and this is a much more succinct version, yes. I don't think he'd have a case even if he were a public person, though, because they didn't print anything untrue.

I think that is not enitekh correct, they altered one of the texts to take out emojis that indicated it was satire.

Meant to say they altered at least one of the texts in a way that changed its meaning, that is different than just failing to print entire text chain.

I have never thought of the upside down smiley face as meaning I didn't mean anything I just said or satire. I googled online for descriptions of it (from a time pre this saga) and it seems that there are about 100 different intended meanings of the emoji. Many say they use it to indicate resignation or whatever or dry humour etc. I am not sure one can assume the intention at the time the emoji was sent was that it means the text that was sent was satire.

If the reporter was unsure what it meant, perhaps she should have asked the person who texted it. You know, practice journalism.

Or as was the case here, she came up with an explanation that it means that nothing I said was true. It is a I meant the opposite of everything in the text chain emoji. But what she says after the fact has nothing to do with what the original intended meaning was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt Baldoni much cares whether he actually wins his lawsuits; he's just trying to get his version of events out in the open which it seems he is accomplishing. His career and livelihood is on the line in a way that Blake Lively's isn't. She'll be fine either way (even if she never gets another film role she's still married to a billionaire, besties with another billionaire, and has other ventures). He might never get work again if he didn't fight back.

I wonder if Blake’s marriage will be fine. I think it possible that much of what apppears to be ginned up in her complaint was likely present by her to Ryan as fact.

I don't see those two splitting up even if they hate each other (not saying they do, but IF). Being a Hollywood power couple is much of their appeal. On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if Taylor Swift drops her like a hot potato. Taylor is ruthless in maintaining her image and if I were her I wouldn't want my name anywhere near this mess. See also Karlie Kloss as mentioned by a PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After watching the film of the dance scene again, there are two things that stand out. Justin Baldoni told that he was going to edit out the sound and no one would know what they were saying. So she relied on the sound being out in her complaint.

I think there was something uncomfortable about Justin Baldoni directing himself in a love/ romantic scene. At one point he is dancing with Blake, and says, "OK, let's see this" ( pointing to her neck and then kissing it or pretending to kiss it).

I think he was just trying to get the shot, but the directing of the scene by Justin was on the fly and not planned. It seemed more intimate than Blake anticipated when he touched her neck. I personally don't think it was all that "intimate" compared to most love scenes, but I do wonder if she usually clears this type of stuff with Reynolds and that's why the spontaneity was offputting.[/quote

From reading the perspective of a few people in the film industry, this was likely B roll with the only real direction being to get some clips of slow dancing in a bar. That there was likely no choreography or IC as it was just to get some slow dance scenes and most of the direction was to the background actors to get the right vibe for the shots. Seems Blake didn't really want it to be intimate and Justin did. Since it was likely lets get a B roll between filming scenes, they probably didn't talk about it much as to what they would do as its usually improvised. These clips were also filmed in May before the strike and the letter etc.

No mater how many times you post this nonsense, it doesn’t change anyone’s mind. The video reveals that what she describes in her allegation is not what actually occurred. She must not have realized it was being recorded.

[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:Any chance a judge approves the gag order? Can anyone here with legal insight provide some clarity?

The are asking for both a protective order (that's what people are referring to as the "gag order") and a hearing to discuss appropriate conduct of counsel moving forward. I can't find a copy of their motion online though so I'm not sure exactly what the are asking the protective order to cover.

They'll get the hearing, that's an easy one and could be rolled into other preliminary hearings the judge might schedule as well. I would expect the judge at the hearing to lecture attorneys on both sides regarding communications to the press, not just Baldoni's lawyers.

I do think there are some things that Baldoni's lawyer has either released or is proposing releasing that the court would consider issuing a PO against. For instance I think it's highly likely the judge could issue a PO preventing Baldoni from releasing footage from the birth scene, where even if you go by Baldoni's complaint, the most Lively was wearing was a pair of underwear briefs on the bottom, and her legs were up in stirrups. That would be an easy one. I am less sure about how the judge would treat other requests for nondisclosure, of stuff like texts/emails between the parties. A lot of it is already in the complaints, I don't know how much else there even is. The judge will have to weight the potentially prejudicial or damaging impact of any potential disclosure against Baldoni's right to defend himself in the court of public opinion. And I don't know if Lively is asking for a blanket PO (unlikely to get) or something more targeted, which is more likely to be successful.

I know the press has a lot of protections, but do you think his case against the New York Times has legitimacy? They left out some key texts. e.g. Two people on his team said there was so much ammo against Justin when it came to the sexual harassment claims, but they left out a part where they both said that those accusations weren't true.

I would be pretty surprised if his NYT suit makes it past summary judgment. The only reservation I have is that recent big settlement by ABC news with Trump, which also surprised me but in retrospect I think they did it to avoid litigation that could go to the Supreme Court and potentially overturn important precedent (Sullivan). So that gives me pause and makes me wonder if we are just in a different era. However, that was Trump as plaintiff and the odds of it going to the SC are high and he appointed half the justices. I don't think Baldoni v. NYT is going that route.

In order to prove defamation, he has to prove "actual malice." He has to prove that they published something that was intentionally misleading with the specific goal of hurting Baldoni. I think this will be virtually impossible for a bunch of reasons -- the piece actually has multiple bylines and it would be hard to prove they collaborated to take Baldoni down, the NYT's fact checking process is pretty rigorous and they will have documentation of everything, and his argument is basically that they failed to provide full context to the allegation but they will simply argue that they reported on Lively's complaint and the allegations they had at the time, and then later reported on Baldoni's complaint and his counter-allegations. News orgs are not required to hold stories until every bit of information is available before reporting.

The NYT has also said they plan to vigorously defend in the case, so that weighs against a potential settlement. I don't think Baldoni has much of a case on the law here. I do wonder what a decisive loss in the NYT case does with regards to his battle against Lively and Reynolds. It won't help, but I don't know how much it will hurt.

Am I understanding correctly that you’re saying if the texts provided to them were edited/incomplete, then they could be shielded from liability by relying on those texts? In other words, they didn’t need to investigate whether those texts were complete or edited before reporting their story? If so, that’s kind of unfortunate because they essentially amplified edited/incomplete texts to present a completely different story than the unedited/complete texts would show! I feel like the due diligence standards should be higher for New York Times journalists…

If they verified the texts were real, no, I don't think they are legally required to ensure they have every single text in a text chain.

Also, even though some of the meaning of specific texts was changed when taken out of context, the broad outlines of what they reported was true -- Baldoni hired a PR firm to plant stories about Lively online in order to undermine her reputation in case she came forward with details about the alleged harassment on set. The context that has since been provided doesn't challenge any of that. It just puts some of the comments in the texts into gentler framing.

I think it's going to be near impossible for Baldoni to prove the NYT intentionally mislead the public with this story because he did actually do what he is accused of doing in terms of the PR story -- he hired the firm specifically to turn public sentiment against Lively. Sure, he'll argue he did that because the harassment allegations are false and he was getting ahead of that story. That's fine and the NYT has reported on his argument as well. But those texts were not made up and the story itself is still accurate even if additional context has come to light.

He basically has no case here.

Failing to provide context isn't libel against anyone.

Failing to provide context against a public figure will be laughed out of court as libel.

PP here and this is a much more succinct version, yes. I don't think he'd have a case even if he were a public person, though, because they didn't print anything untrue.

I think that is not enitekh correct, they altered one of the texts to take out emojis that indicated it was satire.

Meant to say they altered at least one of the texts in a way that changed its meaning, that is different than just failing to print entire text chain.

I have never thought of the upside down smiley face as meaning I didn't mean anything I just said or satire. I googled online for descriptions of it (from a time pre this saga) and it seems that there are about 100 different intended meanings of the emoji. Many say they use it to indicate resignation or whatever or dry humour etc. I am not sure one can assume the intention at the time the emoji was sent was that it means the text that was sent was satire.

If the reporter was unsure what it meant, perhaps she should have asked the person who texted it. You know, practice journalism.

Or as was the case here, she came up with an explanation that it means that nothing I said was true. It is a I meant the opposite of everything in the text chain emoji. But what she says after the fact has nothing to do with what the original intended meaning was.

If she interviewed the author of the text, she would have learned their original intent. They would not have know which way her later published article would slant, and therefore would have no reason to lie.

[Anonymous]

I'm surprised that Lively would not know there was audio on the recording. There must have been a boom mic or something, so how did she not realize that the audio would be there on the raw footage? That's pretty dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt Baldoni much cares whether he actually wins his lawsuits; he's just trying to get his version of events out in the open which it seems he is accomplishing. His career and livelihood is on the line in a way that Blake Lively's isn't. She'll be fine either way (even if she never gets another film role she's still married to a billionaire, besties with another billionaire, and has other ventures). He might never get work again if he didn't fight back.

I wonder if Blake’s marriage will be fine. I think it possible that much of what apppears to be ginned up in her complaint was likely present by her to Ryan as fact.

I don't see those two splitting up even if they hate each other (not saying they do, but IF). Being a Hollywood power couple is much of their appeal. On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if Taylor Swift drops her like a hot potato. Taylor is ruthless in maintaining her image and if I were her I wouldn't want my name anywhere near this mess. See also Karlie Kloss as mentioned by a PP.

Maybe, if my spouse lied to me and I acted in ways that later destroyed my reputation based on those lies, it would destroy my marriage. But they have four kids so there’s that. And perhaps he knew she was lying and encouraged it.

[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:Any chance a judge approves the gag order? Can anyone here with legal insight provide some clarity?

The are asking for both a protective order (that's what people are referring to as the "gag order") and a hearing to discuss appropriate conduct of counsel moving forward. I can't find a copy of their motion online though so I'm not sure exactly what the are asking the protective order to cover.

They'll get the hearing, that's an easy one and could be rolled into other preliminary hearings the judge might schedule as well. I would expect the judge at the hearing to lecture attorneys on both sides regarding communications to the press, not just Baldoni's lawyers.

I do think there are some things that Baldoni's lawyer has either released or is proposing releasing that the court would consider issuing a PO against. For instance I think it's highly likely the judge could issue a PO preventing Baldoni from releasing footage from the birth scene, where even if you go by Baldoni's complaint, the most Lively was wearing was a pair of underwear briefs on the bottom, and her legs were up in stirrups. That would be an easy one. I am less sure about how the judge would treat other requests for nondisclosure, of stuff like texts/emails between the parties. A lot of it is already in the complaints, I don't know how much else there even is. The judge will have to weight the potentially prejudicial or damaging impact of any potential disclosure against Baldoni's right to defend himself in the court of public opinion. And I don't know if Lively is asking for a blanket PO (unlikely to get) or something more targeted, which is more likely to be successful.

I know the press has a lot of protections, but do you think his case against the New York Times has legitimacy? They left out some key texts. e.g. Two people on his team said there was so much ammo against Justin when it came to the sexual harassment claims, but they left out a part where they both said that those accusations weren't true.

I would be pretty surprised if his NYT suit makes it past summary judgment. The only reservation I have is that recent big settlement by ABC news with Trump, which also surprised me but in retrospect I think they did it to avoid litigation that could go to the Supreme Court and potentially overturn important precedent (Sullivan). So that gives me pause and makes me wonder if we are just in a different era. However, that was Trump as plaintiff and the odds of it going to the SC are high and he appointed half the justices. I don't think Baldoni v. NYT is going that route.

In order to prove defamation, he has to prove "actual malice." He has to prove that they published something that was intentionally misleading with the specific goal of hurting Baldoni. I think this will be virtually impossible for a bunch of reasons -- the piece actually has multiple bylines and it would be hard to prove they collaborated to take Baldoni down, the NYT's fact checking process is pretty rigorous and they will have documentation of everything, and his argument is basically that they failed to provide full context to the allegation but they will simply argue that they reported on Lively's complaint and the allegations they had at the time, and then later reported on Baldoni's complaint and his counter-allegations. News orgs are not required to hold stories until every bit of information is available before reporting.

The NYT has also said they plan to vigorously defend in the case, so that weighs against a potential settlement. I don't think Baldoni has much of a case on the law here. I do wonder what a decisive loss in the NYT case does with regards to his battle against Lively and Reynolds. It won't help, but I don't know how much it will hurt.

Am I understanding correctly that you’re saying if the texts provided to them were edited/incomplete, then they could be shielded from liability by relying on those texts? In other words, they didn’t need to investigate whether those texts were complete or edited before reporting their story? If so, that’s kind of unfortunate because they essentially amplified edited/incomplete texts to present a completely different story than the unedited/complete texts would show! I feel like the due diligence standards should be higher for New York Times journalists…

If they verified the texts were real, no, I don't think they are legally required to ensure they have every single text in a text chain.

Also, even though some of the meaning of specific texts was changed when taken out of context, the broad outlines of what they reported was true -- Baldoni hired a PR firm to plant stories about Lively online in order to undermine her reputation in case she came forward with details about the alleged harassment on set. The context that has since been provided doesn't challenge any of that. It just puts some of the comments in the texts into gentler framing.

I think it's going to be near impossible for Baldoni to prove the NYT intentionally mislead the public with this story because he did actually do what he is accused of doing in terms of the PR story -- he hired the firm specifically to turn public sentiment against Lively. Sure, he'll argue he did that because the harassment allegations are false and he was getting ahead of that story. That's fine and the NYT has reported on his argument as well. But those texts were not made up and the story itself is still accurate even if additional context has come to light.

He basically has no case here.

Failing to provide context isn't libel against anyone.

Failing to provide context against a public figure will be laughed out of court as libel.

PP here and this is a much more succinct version, yes. I don't think he'd have a case even if he were a public person, though, because they didn't print anything untrue.

I think that is not enitekh correct, they altered one of the texts to take out emojis that indicated it was satire.

Meant to say they altered at least one of the texts in a way that changed its meaning, that is different than just failing to print entire text chain.

I have never thought of the upside down smiley face as meaning I didn't mean anything I just said or satire. I googled online for descriptions of it (from a time pre this saga) and it seems that there are about 100 different intended meanings of the emoji. Many say they use it to indicate resignation or whatever or dry humour etc. I am not sure one can assume the intention at the time the emoji was sent was that it means the text that was sent was satire.

If the reporter was unsure what it meant, perhaps she should have asked the person who texted it. You know, practice journalism.

I'm a journalist, and I absolutely think the NY times is in trouble. For one thing, if you are making claims about someone, you need to tell them and give them enough time to make a response before publishing. They failed to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised that Lively would not know there was audio on the recording. There must have been a boom mic or something, so how did she not realize that the audio would be there on the raw footage? That's pretty dumb.

A smart person would not have acted as she has, period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt Baldoni much cares whether he actually wins his lawsuits; he's just trying to get his version of events out in the open which it seems he is accomplishing. His career and livelihood is on the line in a way that Blake Lively's isn't. She'll be fine either way (even if she never gets another film role she's still married to a billionaire, besties with another billionaire, and has other ventures). He might never get work again if he didn't fight back.

I wonder if Blake’s marriage will be fine. I think it possible that much of what apppears to be ginned up in her complaint was likely present by her to Ryan as fact.

I don't see those two splitting up even if they hate each other (not saying they do, but IF). Being a Hollywood power couple is much of their appeal. On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if Taylor Swift drops her like a hot potato. Taylor is ruthless in maintaining her image and if I were her I wouldn't want my name anywhere near this mess. See also Karlie Kloss as mentioned by a PP.

Maybe, if my spouse lied to me and I acted in ways that later destroyed my reputation based on those lies, it would destroy my marriage. But they have four kids so there’s that. And perhaps he knew she was lying and encouraged it.

It’s a matter of perception not lies. There is a difference. I know you want to see her utterly destroyed but it’s just not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt Baldoni much cares whether he actually wins his lawsuits; he's just trying to get his version of events out in the open which it seems he is accomplishing. His career and livelihood is on the line in a way that Blake Lively's isn't. She'll be fine either way (even if she never gets another film role she's still married to a billionaire, besties with another billionaire, and has other ventures). He might never get work again if he didn't fight back.

I wonder if Blake’s marriage will be fine. I think it possible that much of what apppears to be ginned up in her complaint was likely present by her to Ryan as fact.

I don't see those two splitting up even if they hate each other (not saying they do, but IF). Being a Hollywood power couple is much of their appeal. On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if Taylor Swift drops her like a hot potato. Taylor is ruthless in maintaining her image and if I were her I wouldn't want my name anywhere near this mess. See also Karlie Kloss as mentioned by a PP.

Maybe, if my spouse lied to me and I acted in ways that later destroyed my reputation based on those lies, it would destroy my marriage. But they have four kids so there’s that. And perhaps he knew she was lying and encouraged it.

It’s a matter of perception not lies. There is a difference. I know you want to see her utterly destroyed but it’s just not going to happen.

Clearly I disagree. As do a number of other posters here. She ginned up a story to lay a foundation for taking over the movie and for her retaliation claims. She doesn’t have a case. And yes, both her and her husband’s reps have been destroyed, that is already obvious. He has enough money to insulate them from most of the consequences but it remains the case.

[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:Any chance a judge approves the gag order? Can anyone here with legal insight provide some clarity?

The are asking for both a protective order (that's what people are referring to as the "gag order") and a hearing to discuss appropriate conduct of counsel moving forward. I can't find a copy of their motion online though so I'm not sure exactly what the are asking the protective order to cover.

They'll get the hearing, that's an easy one and could be rolled into other preliminary hearings the judge might schedule as well. I would expect the judge at the hearing to lecture attorneys on both sides regarding communications to the press, not just Baldoni's lawyers.

I do think there are some things that Baldoni's lawyer has either released or is proposing releasing that the court would consider issuing a PO against. For instance I think it's highly likely the judge could issue a PO preventing Baldoni from releasing footage from the birth scene, where even if you go by Baldoni's complaint, the most Lively was wearing was a pair of underwear briefs on the bottom, and her legs were up in stirrups. That would be an easy one. I am less sure about how the judge would treat other requests for nondisclosure, of stuff like texts/emails between the parties. A lot of it is already in the complaints, I don't know how much else there even is. The judge will have to weight the potentially prejudicial or damaging impact of any potential disclosure against Baldoni's right to defend himself in the court of public opinion. And I don't know if Lively is asking for a blanket PO (unlikely to get) or something more targeted, which is more likely to be successful.

I know the press has a lot of protections, but do you think his case against the New York Times has legitimacy? They left out some key texts. e.g. Two people on his team said there was so much ammo against Justin when it came to the sexual harassment claims, but they left out a part where they both said that those accusations weren't true.

I would be pretty surprised if his NYT suit makes it past summary judgment. The only reservation I have is that recent big settlement by ABC news with Trump, which also surprised me but in retrospect I think they did it to avoid litigation that could go to the Supreme Court and potentially overturn important precedent (Sullivan). So that gives me pause and makes me wonder if we are just in a different era. However, that was Trump as plaintiff and the odds of it going to the SC are high and he appointed half the justices. I don't think Baldoni v. NYT is going that route.

In order to prove defamation, he has to prove "actual malice." He has to prove that they published something that was intentionally misleading with the specific goal of hurting Baldoni. I think this will be virtually impossible for a bunch of reasons -- the piece actually has multiple bylines and it would be hard to prove they collaborated to take Baldoni down, the NYT's fact checking process is pretty rigorous and they will have documentation of everything, and his argument is basically that they failed to provide full context to the allegation but they will simply argue that they reported on Lively's complaint and the allegations they had at the time, and then later reported on Baldoni's complaint and his counter-allegations. News orgs are not required to hold stories until every bit of information is available before reporting.

The NYT has also said they plan to vigorously defend in the case, so that weighs against a potential settlement. I don't think Baldoni has much of a case on the law here. I do wonder what a decisive loss in the NYT case does with regards to his battle against Lively and Reynolds. It won't help, but I don't know how much it will hurt.

Am I understanding correctly that you’re saying if the texts provided to them were edited/incomplete, then they could be shielded from liability by relying on those texts? In other words, they didn’t need to investigate whether those texts were complete or edited before reporting their story? If so, that’s kind of unfortunate because they essentially amplified edited/incomplete texts to present a completely different story than the unedited/complete texts would show! I feel like the due diligence standards should be higher for New York Times journalists…

If they verified the texts were real, no, I don't think they are legally required to ensure they have every single text in a text chain.

Also, even though some of the meaning of specific texts was changed when taken out of context, the broad outlines of what they reported was true -- Baldoni hired a PR firm to plant stories about Lively online in order to undermine her reputation in case she came forward with details about the alleged harassment on set. The context that has since been provided doesn't challenge any of that. It just puts some of the comments in the texts into gentler framing.

I think it's going to be near impossible for Baldoni to prove the NYT intentionally mislead the public with this story because he did actually do what he is accused of doing in terms of the PR story -- he hired the firm specifically to turn public sentiment against Lively. Sure, he'll argue he did that because the harassment allegations are false and he was getting ahead of that story. That's fine and the NYT has reported on his argument as well. But those texts were not made up and the story itself is still accurate even if additional context has come to light.

He basically has no case here.

Failing to provide context isn't libel against anyone.

Failing to provide context against a public figure will be laughed out of court as libel.

PP here and this is a much more succinct version, yes. I don't think he'd have a case even if he were a public person, though, because they didn't print anything untrue.

I think that is not enitekh correct, they altered one of the texts to take out emojis that indicated it was satire.

Meant to say they altered at least one of the texts in a way that changed its meaning, that is different than just failing to print entire text chain.

I have never thought of the upside down smiley face as meaning I didn't mean anything I just said or satire. I googled online for descriptions of it (from a time pre this saga) and it seems that there are about 100 different intended meanings of the emoji. Many say they use it to indicate resignation or whatever or dry humour etc. I am not sure one can assume the intention at the time the emoji was sent was that it means the text that was sent was satire.

If the reporter was unsure what it meant, perhaps she should have asked the person who texted it. You know, practice journalism.

I'm a journalist, and I absolutely think the NY times is in trouble. For one thing, if you are making claims about someone, you need to tell them and give them enough time to make a response before publishing. They failed to do that.

That's a good standard to have, but is it a legal requirement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt Baldoni much cares whether he actually wins his lawsuits; he's just trying to get his version of events out in the open which it seems he is accomplishing. His career and livelihood is on the line in a way that Blake Lively's isn't. She'll be fine either way (even if she never gets another film role she's still married to a billionaire, besties with another billionaire, and has other ventures). He might never get work again if he didn't fight back.

I wonder if Blake’s marriage will be fine. I think it possible that much of what apppears to be ginned up in her complaint was likely present by her to Ryan as fact.

I don't see those two splitting up even if they hate each other (not saying they do, but IF). Being a Hollywood power couple is much of their appeal. On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if Taylor Swift drops her like a hot potato. Taylor is ruthless in maintaining her image and if I were her I wouldn't want my name anywhere near this mess. See also Karlie Kloss as mentioned by a PP.

Maybe, if my spouse lied to me and I acted in ways that later destroyed my reputation based on those lies, it would destroy my marriage. But they have four kids so there’s that. And perhaps he knew she was lying and encouraged it.

It’s a matter of perception not lies. There is a difference. I know you want to see her utterly destroyed but it’s just not going to happen.

Definitely different perspectives. Jus t like some on here can sense her discomfort and others insist they k ow for sure that she never felt uncomfortable and was loving every minute.

I always find it interesting how people think they know for sure how someone else feels or what someone was was thinking. (About anyone else, not specific to this case or Blake). Especially from a distance, about strangers or people on tv.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt Baldoni much cares whether he actually wins his lawsuits; he's just trying to get his version of events out in the open which it seems he is accomplishing. His career and livelihood is on the line in a way that Blake Lively's isn't. She'll be fine either way (even if she never gets another film role she's still married to a billionaire, besties with another billionaire, and has other ventures). He might never get work again if he didn't fight back.

I wonder if Blake’s marriage will be fine. I think it possible that much of what apppears to be ginned up in her complaint was likely present by her to Ryan as fact.

I don't see those two splitting up even if they hate each other (not saying they do, but IF). Being a Hollywood power couple is much of their appeal. On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if Taylor Swift drops her like a hot potato. Taylor is ruthless in maintaining her image and if I were her I wouldn't want my name anywhere near this mess. See also Karlie Kloss as mentioned by a PP.

Maybe, if my spouse lied to me and I acted in ways that later destroyed my reputation based on those lies, it would destroy my marriage. But they have four kids so there’s that. And perhaps he knew she was lying and encouraged it.

It’s a matter of perception not lies. There is a difference. I know you want to see her utterly destroyed but it’s just not going to happen.

Definitely different perspectives. Jus t like some on here can sense her discomfort and others insist they k ow for sure that she never felt uncomfortable and was loving every minute.

I always find it interesting how people think they know for sure how someone else feels or what someone was was thinking. (About anyone else, not specific to this case or Blake). Especially from a distance, about strangers or people on tv.

Lawsuits are not about perceptions.