Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was the Blake Lively thread locked?

Anyways, a lawyer (or at least one claiming to be) said Justin could have a case if the NYTimes published texts about him and then excluded ones right after if they said "just kidding!" or something.

There actually is kind of an instance of that where a PR person texts that Justin whispered in someone's ear and did other disgusting things...but the NYT excludes the portion where the PR says these are all lies.

To complicate matters even further, I don't see that particular text chain in the piece. I don't know if they updated the story or if they never had it in there in the first place; however, the main NYT reporter for the story did talk this misleading text chain in an Insta post.

They still have to show “actual malice” by the NYT. that high standard was developed specifically to be a sort of safe harbor for the media to make mistakes and yes, even do crappy reporting. because without it, it would be very hard to protect the press from constant litigation and they would withhold a lot of reporting.

People always say this, but it’s not really the full picture at all. The reality is that most journalistic mistakes don’t end up with defamation claims because most people don’t have the money to litigate and these cases are long and slow. But if you have $ to take it to the mat- which Baldoni and his backers seem to- you know you will end up in front of a jury of random people, many of whom don’t trust the ‘main stream media’.

See last year’s Fox old dominion case with a last minute settlement that approached a billion dollars. See the recent Trump settlement for 15m over the difference between rape and sexual assault. Etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has been amicable, so let's not let it get derailed by talking about posters, however frustrating they may be.

I can see where a false light claim would be easier than a defamation claim insofar as you don't have to prove falsity, but I agree with PP that a celebrity can't use it do an end run as in "this was technically true [the existence of the complaint and texts] but it made me look bad." Most jurisdictions seem to still require actual malice for false light claims involving public figures, and that's the part Baldoni will find difficult to prove.

But actual malice also includes ‘reckless disregard for the truth’. Can’t the Plaintiffs show that ignoring the full context of the texts shows that recklessness? It would be for a jury to decide that issue, and media defendants aren’t popular at trial

“Reckless” anything is pretty hard to prove. It would be something like the NYTimes printing a tip they received in crayon from a drunk guy in Times Square. making a mistake or not being careful is not “reckless.”

I think you’re guessing here. That determination is made by a jury and juries are not at all precise, and can easily be swayed by emotions (who they like, who they don’t, what they think of the media etc). You are making a big leap by assuming no jury could find that standard was met. Aside from the fact that the plaintiffs other than Baldoni may be found to be private figures

no, it doesn’t go to a jury if it is legally insufficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was the Blake Lively thread locked?

Anyways, a lawyer (or at least one claiming to be) said Justin could have a case if the NYTimes published texts about him and then excluded ones right after if they said "just kidding!" or something.

There actually is kind of an instance of that where a PR person texts that Justin whispered in someone's ear and did other disgusting things...but the NYT excludes the portion where the PR says these are all lies.

To complicate matters even further, I don't see that particular text chain in the piece. I don't know if they updated the story or if they never had it in there in the first place; however, the main NYT reporter for the story did talk this misleading text chain in an Insta post.

They still have to show “actual malice” by the NYT. that high standard was developed specifically to be a sort of safe harbor for the media to make mistakes and yes, even do crappy reporting. because without it, it would be very hard to protect the press from constant litigation and they would withhold a lot of reporting.

People always say this, but it’s not really the full picture at all. The reality is that most journalistic mistakes don’t end up with defamation claims because most people don’t have the money to litigate and these cases are long and slow. But if you have $ to take it to the mat- which Baldoni and his backers seem to- you know you will end up in front of a jury of random people, many of whom don’t trust the ‘main stream media’.

See last year’s Fox old dominion case with a last minute settlement that approached a billion dollars. See the recent Trump settlement for 15m over the difference between rape and sexual assault. Etc

Those cases had MUCH stronger facts - they were outright fabrications by FOX, with a record showing FOX knew they were false. The NYTimes publishes damaging stories about very rich people ALL the time. It is very, very difficult to prove a defamation claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a very confusingly worded post about a podcast episode (really?) that provides no links and no useful discussion, after the website thread was just closed down LESS THAN 24 HOURS AGO after a person who trolled around with anti-Lively posts said they regret nothing for trolling and insulting the anti-Baldoni side and would do it again.

LESS THAN 24 HOURS PEOPLE. I PROPOSE A LONGER BREAK FROM LIVELY/BALDONI THREADS so that people can remember what their normal lives are like. At least one week. A podcast episode or this email release is not a true development. Maybe people can't even deal with this subject reasonably at all. I don't understand why someone would feel the need to post this not-really-a-development thread after both the thread itself and the thread asking for closure of the thread were locked because people could not control themselves and act like human beings?

Omg get a grip. A number of us find this interesting from a legal perspective. I’d personally like to know more about how a “false light” claim is somehow easier to show than defamation.

These threads are the most interesting things that have been on DCUM in a while, due to the very high number of lawyers and journalists in this region who can weigh in on the actual case, and on the schadenfreude of seeing a mean girl face consequences.

I didnt care about Blake Lively or Ryan Reynolds or Justin Baldoni at all until like a week ago, and now this is my crack. Reddit is pretty good for a fix, but let's keep it rolling here.

Same. Did the other thread get locked because of someone’s behavior or because of the amount of posts? I was so confused when I tried to post there yesterday.

Someone complained that the posts were too mean to Lively. I’m half way convinced there’s a Lively PR schill on here

Wow. Interesting. That’s too bad. It was such a good thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was the Blake Lively thread locked?

Anyways, a lawyer (or at least one claiming to be) said Justin could have a case if the NYTimes published texts about him and then excluded ones right after if they said "just kidding!" or something.

There actually is kind of an instance of that where a PR person texts that Justin whispered in someone's ear and did other disgusting things...but the NYT excludes the portion where the PR says these are all lies.

To complicate matters even further, I don't see that particular text chain in the piece. I don't know if they updated the story or if they never had it in there in the first place; however, the main NYT reporter for the story did talk this misleading text chain in an Insta post.

They still have to show “actual malice” by the NYT. that high standard was developed specifically to be a sort of safe harbor for the media to make mistakes and yes, even do crappy reporting. because without it, it would be very hard to protect the press from constant litigation and they would withhold a lot of reporting.

People always say this, but it’s not really the full picture at all. The reality is that most journalistic mistakes don’t end up with defamation claims because most people don’t have the money to litigate and these cases are long and slow. But if you have $ to take it to the mat- which Baldoni and his backers seem to- you know you will end up in front of a jury of random people, many of whom don’t trust the ‘main stream media’.

See last year’s Fox old dominion case with a last minute settlement that approached a billion dollars. See the recent Trump settlement for 15m over the difference between rape and sexual assault. Etc

Those cases had MUCH stronger facts - they were outright fabrications by FOX, with a record showing FOX knew they were false. The NYTimes publishes damaging stories about very rich people ALL the time. It is very, very difficult to prove a defamation claim.

also no, you don’t just get to “take a case to a jury” because you have money. The judge decides if the facts are legally sufficient as alleged at the motion to dismiss stage, and if there are any genuine issues in dispute at the summary judgment stage. In a 1A case there are many many legal precedents to draw on for the judge to dispose of the case as a matter of law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If defamation is difficult to prove for a public figure then false light must be nearly impossible.

I am not familiar with this case but I view it as a dependent claim. If he can prove defamation, he can probably prove false light. But if he can't prove defamation, I think it would be hard to impossible to prove false light. But maybe there is something unique about this case, I don't know.

The law prof sort of said the opposite. That Baldoni may be able to prove false light even if his defamation claims fail, which they might because of the fair report privilege.

I personally think the defamation by implication is the most compelling argument

Me too. NYT supposedly saw all the text messages and chose certain ones. Now the content was still unsavory but didn't portray the whole picture at all.

Which is freggin ironic considering the smear campaign against Livey did just that.

[Anonymous]

I just cannot follow this story at all. None of it makes sense but maybe that is because I can't bring myself to care our get outraged about any of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has been amicable, so let's not let it get derailed by talking about posters, however frustrating they may be.

I can see where a false light claim would be easier than a defamation claim insofar as you don't have to prove falsity, but I agree with PP that a celebrity can't use it do an end run as in "this was technically true [the existence of the complaint and texts] but it made me look bad." Most jurisdictions seem to still require actual malice for false light claims involving public figures, and that's the part Baldoni will find difficult to prove.

But actual malice also includes ‘reckless disregard for the truth’. Can’t the Plaintiffs show that ignoring the full context of the texts shows that recklessness? It would be for a jury to decide that issue, and media defendants aren’t popular at trial

“Reckless” anything is pretty hard to prove. It would be something like the NYTimes printing a tip they received in crayon from a drunk guy in Times Square. making a mistake or not being careful is not “reckless.”

I think you’re guessing here. That determination is made by a jury and juries are not at all precise, and can easily be swayed by emotions (who they like, who they don’t, what they think of the media etc). You are making a big leap by assuming no jury could find that standard was met. Aside from the fact that the plaintiffs other than Baldoni may be found to be private figures

no, it doesn’t go to a jury if it is legally insufficient.

Do you mean like a summary judgment motion? Do you know how often they’re successful in defamation cases that get that far? (After discovery and depo etc)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was the Blake Lively thread locked?

Anyways, a lawyer (or at least one claiming to be) said Justin could have a case if the NYTimes published texts about him and then excluded ones right after if they said "just kidding!" or something.

There actually is kind of an instance of that where a PR person texts that Justin whispered in someone's ear and did other disgusting things...but the NYT excludes the portion where the PR says these are all lies.

To complicate matters even further, I don't see that particular text chain in the piece. I don't know if they updated the story or if they never had it in there in the first place; however, the main NYT reporter for the story did talk this misleading text chain in an Insta post.

They still have to show “actual malice” by the NYT. that high standard was developed specifically to be a sort of safe harbor for the media to make mistakes and yes, even do crappy reporting. because without it, it would be very hard to protect the press from constant litigation and they would withhold a lot of reporting.

People always say this, but it’s not really the full picture at all. The reality is that most journalistic mistakes don’t end up with defamation claims because most people don’t have the money to litigate and these cases are long and slow. But if you have $ to take it to the mat- which Baldoni and his backers seem to- you know you will end up in front of a jury of random people, many of whom don’t trust the ‘main stream media’.

See last year’s Fox old dominion case with a last minute settlement that approached a billion dollars. See the recent Trump settlement for 15m over the difference between rape and sexual assault. Etc

Those cases had MUCH stronger facts - they were outright fabrications by FOX, with a record showing FOX knew they were false. The NYTimes publishes damaging stories about very rich people ALL the time. It is very, very difficult to prove a defamation claim.

Well, according to Fox it was opinion and they were just commenting on a matter of public interest.

What false stories about famous people has the NYT published? Genuinely curious.

The NYT is still litigating a case with Sara Palin over one line in an op ed essentially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was the Blake Lively thread locked?

Anyways, a lawyer (or at least one claiming to be) said Justin could have a case if the NYTimes published texts about him and then excluded ones right after if they said "just kidding!" or something.

There actually is kind of an instance of that where a PR person texts that Justin whispered in someone's ear and did other disgusting things...but the NYT excludes the portion where the PR says these are all lies.

To complicate matters even further, I don't see that particular text chain in the piece. I don't know if they updated the story or if they never had it in there in the first place; however, the main NYT reporter for the story did talk this misleading text chain in an Insta post.

They still have to show “actual malice” by the NYT. that high standard was developed specifically to be a sort of safe harbor for the media to make mistakes and yes, even do crappy reporting. because without it, it would be very hard to protect the press from constant litigation and they would withhold a lot of reporting.

People always say this, but it’s not really the full picture at all. The reality is that most journalistic mistakes don’t end up with defamation claims because most people don’t have the money to litigate and these cases are long and slow. But if you have $ to take it to the mat- which Baldoni and his backers seem to- you know you will end up in front of a jury of random people, many of whom don’t trust the ‘main stream media’.

See last year’s Fox old dominion case with a last minute settlement that approached a billion dollars. See the recent Trump settlement for 15m over the difference between rape and sexual assault. Etc

Those cases had MUCH stronger facts - they were outright fabrications by FOX, with a record showing FOX knew they were false. The NYTimes publishes damaging stories about very rich people ALL the time. It is very, very difficult to prove a defamation claim.

also no, you don’t just get to “take a case to a jury” because you have money. The judge decides if the facts are legally sufficient as alleged at the motion to dismiss stage, and if there are any genuine issues in dispute at the summary judgment stage. In a 1A case there are many many legal precedents to draw on for the judge to dispose of the case as a matter of law.

Most individuals can’t afford to bring lawsuits. This case will likely survive a MTD and then it’s on. I don’t think you know this area of the law very well

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a very confusingly worded post about a podcast episode (really?) that provides no links and no useful discussion, after the website thread was just closed down LESS THAN 24 HOURS AGO after a person who trolled around with anti-Lively posts said they regret nothing for trolling and insulting the anti-Baldoni side and would do it again.

LESS THAN 24 HOURS PEOPLE. I PROPOSE A LONGER BREAK FROM LIVELY/BALDONI THREADS so that people can remember what their normal lives are like. At least one week. A podcast episode or this email release is not a true development. Maybe people can't even deal with this subject reasonably at all. I don't understand why someone would feel the need to post this not-really-a-development thread after both the thread itself and the thread asking for closure of the thread were locked because people could not control themselves and act like human beings?

Omg get a grip. A number of us find this interesting from a legal perspective. I’d personally like to know more about how a “false light” claim is somehow easier to show than defamation.

These threads are the most interesting things that have been on DCUM in a while, due to the very high number of lawyers and journalists in this region who can weigh in on the actual case, and on the schadenfreude of seeing a mean girl face consequences.

I didnt care about Blake Lively or Ryan Reynolds or Justin Baldoni at all until like a week ago, and now this is my crack. Reddit is pretty good for a fix, but let's keep it rolling here.

Can you let me know what Reddit subs you’re reading on this? This is my crack too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was the Blake Lively thread locked?

Anyways, a lawyer (or at least one claiming to be) said Justin could have a case if the NYTimes published texts about him and then excluded ones right after if they said "just kidding!" or something.

There actually is kind of an instance of that where a PR person texts that Justin whispered in someone's ear and did other disgusting things...but the NYT excludes the portion where the PR says these are all lies.

To complicate matters even further, I don't see that particular text chain in the piece. I don't know if they updated the story or if they never had it in there in the first place; however, the main NYT reporter for the story did talk this misleading text chain in an Insta post.

They still have to show “actual malice” by the NYT. that high standard was developed specifically to be a sort of safe harbor for the media to make mistakes and yes, even do crappy reporting. because without it, it would be very hard to protect the press from constant litigation and they would withhold a lot of reporting.

People always say this, but it’s not really the full picture at all. The reality is that most journalistic mistakes don’t end up with defamation claims because most people don’t have the money to litigate and these cases are long and slow. But if you have $ to take it to the mat- which Baldoni and his backers seem to- you know you will end up in front of a jury of random people, many of whom don’t trust the ‘main stream media’.

See last year’s Fox old dominion case with a last minute settlement that approached a billion dollars. See the recent Trump settlement for 15m over the difference between rape and sexual assault. Etc

Those cases had MUCH stronger facts - they were outright fabrications by FOX, with a record showing FOX knew they were false. The NYTimes publishes damaging stories about very rich people ALL the time. It is very, very difficult to prove a defamation claim.

also no, you don’t just get to “take a case to a jury” because you have money. The judge decides if the facts are legally sufficient as alleged at the motion to dismiss stage, and if there are any genuine issues in dispute at the summary judgment stage. In a 1A case there are many many legal precedents to draw on for the judge to dispose of the case as a matter of law.

Btw, no media lawyer says things like ‘1A case’. Try harder :)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was the Blake Lively thread locked?

Anyways, a lawyer (or at least one claiming to be) said Justin could have a case if the NYTimes published texts about him and then excluded ones right after if they said "just kidding!" or something.

There actually is kind of an instance of that where a PR person texts that Justin whispered in someone's ear and did other disgusting things...but the NYT excludes the portion where the PR says these are all lies.

To complicate matters even further, I don't see that particular text chain in the piece. I don't know if they updated the story or if they never had it in there in the first place; however, the main NYT reporter for the story did talk this misleading text chain in an Insta post.

They still have to show “actual malice” by the NYT. that high standard was developed specifically to be a sort of safe harbor for the media to make mistakes and yes, even do crappy reporting. because without it, it would be very hard to protect the press from constant litigation and they would withhold a lot of reporting.

People always say this, but it’s not really the full picture at all. The reality is that most journalistic mistakes don’t end up with defamation claims because most people don’t have the money to litigate and these cases are long and slow. But if you have $ to take it to the mat- which Baldoni and his backers seem to- you know you will end up in front of a jury of random people, many of whom don’t trust the ‘main stream media’.

See last year’s Fox old dominion case with a last minute settlement that approached a billion dollars. See the recent Trump settlement for 15m over the difference between rape and sexual assault. Etc

That's a huge difference legally. They stated he was found liable for rape when he wasn't. It probably was just a slip of the tongue because the concepts of rape and sexual abuse are similar and most people use interchange them all the time, but ABC certainly had good reason not to want to produce discovery on all documents mentioning "Trump" because yeah, I'm sure there was lots of malice there from their staff. Not at all the same thing as NYT not giving Baldoni a more balanced treatment or cherry picking from hundreds of texts without giving full and complete context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a very confusingly worded post about a podcast episode (really?) that provides no links and no useful discussion, after the website thread was just closed down LESS THAN 24 HOURS AGO after a person who trolled around with anti-Lively posts said they regret nothing for trolling and insulting the anti-Baldoni side and would do it again.

LESS THAN 24 HOURS PEOPLE. I PROPOSE A LONGER BREAK FROM LIVELY/BALDONI THREADS so that people can remember what their normal lives are like. At least one week. A podcast episode or this email release is not a true development. Maybe people can't even deal with this subject reasonably at all. I don't understand why someone would feel the need to post this not-really-a-development thread after both the thread itself and the thread asking for closure of the thread were locked because people could not control themselves and act like human beings?

Omg get a grip. A number of us find this interesting from a legal perspective. I’d personally like to know more about how a “false light” claim is somehow easier to show than defamation.

These threads are the most interesting things that have been on DCUM in a while, due to the very high number of lawyers and journalists in this region who can weigh in on the actual case, and on the schadenfreude of seeing a mean girl face consequences.

I didnt care about Blake Lively or Ryan Reynolds or Justin Baldoni at all until like a week ago, and now this is my crack. Reddit is pretty good for a fix, but let's keep it rolling here.

Can you let me know what Reddit subs you’re reading on this? This is my crack too!

Not the OP, but popculture and justinbaldoni, where there are posters with at least some brain cells. There's also blakelivelysnark, but as much as I dislike Blake, the people there are really stupid and either grasp at straws or believe everything negative that comes out about her, including anonymous TikTok anecdotes and AI-generated "evidence."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a very confusingly worded post about a podcast episode (really?) that provides no links and no useful discussion, after the website thread was just closed down LESS THAN 24 HOURS AGO after a person who trolled around with anti-Lively posts said they regret nothing for trolling and insulting the anti-Baldoni side and would do it again.

LESS THAN 24 HOURS PEOPLE. I PROPOSE A LONGER BREAK FROM LIVELY/BALDONI THREADS so that people can remember what their normal lives are like. At least one week. A podcast episode or this email release is not a true development. Maybe people can't even deal with this subject reasonably at all. I don't understand why someone would feel the need to post this not-really-a-development thread after both the thread itself and the thread asking for closure of the thread were locked because people could not control themselves and act like human beings?

Omg get a grip. A number of us find this interesting from a legal perspective. I’d personally like to know more about how a “false light” claim is somehow easier to show than defamation.

These threads are the most interesting things that have been on DCUM in a while, due to the very high number of lawyers and journalists in this region who can weigh in on the actual case, and on the schadenfreude of seeing a mean girl face consequences.

I didnt care about Blake Lively or Ryan Reynolds or Justin Baldoni at all until like a week ago, and now this is my crack. Reddit is pretty good for a fix, but let's keep it rolling here.

Can you let me know what Reddit subs you’re reading on this? This is my crack too!

DP. blakelivelysnark is one. Justinbaldoni is another. The former definitely has an obvious point of view. The latter claims to just be about all things Justin baldoni related, but it seems to skew friendly to him. Regardless, those subs stay up to date on the latest tea/news/etc. Other subs that are more general interest pop culture but sometimes have things about this are fauxmoi and popculturechat. Also tons of YouTubers. Zack peter and Dave Neal are a couple.