Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lively was right about Justin. He is porn and sex obsessed and he was trying to turn a movie about DV into a vehicle for his sexual fantasies. He was gross and many of the women on the movie thought so. Jamey Heath enables him and they both have boundary issues. And when they realized people might find this stuff out about them, their egos led them to hire sketchy people like Melissa Nathan, Jed Wallace, and Bryan Freedman to try and destroy Lively's reputation so no one would ever believe her. And they basically got away with it.

I do think Lively lost this case, the 47.1 motion not withstanding (we'll see, I have no faith), and I think that's fundamentally unfair because: she was right.

But life is unfair and 2026 America is not a bastion of truth or justice. I hate it, but I'm not going to pretend it's anything else.

DP. This is a huge masterclass in gaslighting. I don’t even know what you and PP are talking about at this point, but none of this is factoring into the judge’s decision on 47.1. It feels like Blake fans are doing anything to change the subject b/c staying on topic is inconvenient for them.

The question is can a California law apply to something that happened in New Jersey (probably not); and if it could, does the law violate the constitution (yes, Justin’s first amendment rights); is it justifiable as an anti slap law, which has lots of precedent and is widely accepted (no, 47.1 is fundamentally different from other anti slap laws b/c it gives preference to a specific kind of speech and calls for more than simple fee shifting); and if Blake can get past all that (she probably can’t) was her case brought without malice (WF has brought compelling facts including Vanzan and spoliation evidence suggesting it was not.) Also you have to recall Blake was trying to get him fired from wme (remember the Sklenar “when wme drops him” text) and the nyt proudly proclaimed that Justin had gone unscathed until the article dropped and wme cut him. It’s in the article, they made the update, they were proud, just look for yourself. Yet they haven’t updated any of their bad facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for you to say, "Oh, I was wrong. It turns out Colleen Hoover did tell Justin to tone down the sex in the movie, and it turns out Sony was not pushing for the R rating -- Justin was. I see now that I had incorrect ideas about what happened and might not not know as much as I thought I did."

But if you need to spin out first, ok I guess. Do you need to talk about how Ryan is closeted and they're gonna get divorced and how hot Justin's abs are? Go for it babe. I know it's hard.

I wasn’t wrong though. Sony and Colleen and Blake seemed to have different visions. You will recall Colleen handpicked Justin to tell the story and pushed him to play the lead. Why rewrite history.

Justin realized early on Blake was very self conscious and was more than willing to work with her. She was the one who was improvising kissing scenes with him. You are just leaving a lot out to fit your version of the story.

The rooftop scene she sent over had that totally gross and inappropriate term. And the scene was over the top.

You were 100% wrong. I told you Colleen had told Justin that she wanted less sex and more romance/build up in the movie, and you told me it "never happened." I then proved it happened with the actual texts where she said this, and you now claim you never said what you obviously said -- it's in writing in this thread, and then claimed Sony was forcing Justin to make an R rated film. I then disproved that with direct evidence showing that it was the opposite -- Justin wanted to do an R rated film and Sony was skeptical, and their only hang up about a PG-13 film was whether Colleen felt her book readers would be interested. And she very firmly said YES, book readers wanted a PG-13 film because the sex was way less important than the emotion, and Colleen herself wanted teens to be able to go.

Blake wanted a PG-13 film with less sex, probably partly because she just doesn't do a lot of sex/nudity in movies (a known issue that Wayfarer must have been aware of when they hired her) but also she seemed to just think it was a better way to tell a story about a woman who is a DV survivor for an audience of mostly women.

Colleen wanted a PG-13 film because as an experienced romance writer and a consumer of both romance books and movies, she truly believed that audiences (women like her) would prefer more emotion and less sex, and in fact would feel uncomfortable or put off by too much sex or too explicit sex, and she wanted teens to be able to see the movie and for it to be accessible.

And Sony was a little more ambivalent but was not pushing for an R film at all, they viewed it from a business standpoint in terms of what their ratings team would recommend/approve, how the movie would sell, and what Colleen's built in audience would want.

They were all essentially in agreement.

Only Justin wanted to make a graphic, highly sexed, R rated movie. And there are THREE women telling him that maybe that's not a good idea, and he thinks they are all wrong.

Maybe Justin wasn't the right director for this film.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively was right about Justin. He is porn and sex obsessed and he was trying to turn a movie about DV into a vehicle for his sexual fantasies. He was gross and many of the women on the movie thought so. Jamey Heath enables him and they both have boundary issues. And when they realized people might find this stuff out about them, their egos led them to hire sketchy people like Melissa Nathan, Jed Wallace, and Bryan Freedman to try and destroy Lively's reputation so no one would ever believe her. And they basically got away with it.

I do think Lively lost this case, the 47.1 motion not withstanding (we'll see, I have no faith), and I think that's fundamentally unfair because: she was right.

But life is unfair and 2026 America is not a bastion of truth or justice. I hate it, but I'm not going to pretend it's anything else.

Yep. And Lively personally is not very sympathetic so whatever, but the whole thing is just skeevy.

PP and yes. Lively is rich and very privileged and can be hard to like. I wasn't a Lively fan before all this and I continue to see her as problematic in a lot of ways. I've never even seen IEWU because I don't really like her as an actress. But she was right about Justin. And I actually have arrived at a point of respect for her because she has toughed it out through all of this when she didn't have to, and could have just run off with her money and put it all behind her. Maybe it's because she's privileged and knew she'd been wronged and wanted justice -- I would never have pursued this as she did because I don't have that kind of money or privilege or, frankly, self esteem and would have just rolled over and walked away. But that's why, in a way, I'm glad it was her. She never backed down and she still isn't. The settlement is disappointing and I really wanted the trial but she's still asserting herself. And again, she's right, so good for her.

One thing about the settlement having no NDA is that I'd like to see a tell all from Blake after all this. A book, a movie, something. Bring on Jenny Slate, Alex Saks, Liz Plank. Tell the truth about what happened in a way that will actually make people listen (because a lawsuit didn't work, people didn't actually read the documents and just ate up whatever narrative Justin's side sold via TikTok and YouTube). I think it could be really interesting, and they could use all the evidence from the lawsuit that is part of the public record to expose people like Jed and Melissa Nathan. Play that freaking audio of Steve Sarowitz. I would pay money for that book or see that movie in a theater. I really would. I'd love to see Blake find a way to win this thing in the court of public opinion, especially because I think what has happened legally has been a real miscarriage of justice (at least thus far).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively was right about Justin. He is porn and sex obsessed and he was trying to turn a movie about DV into a vehicle for his sexual fantasies. He was gross and many of the women on the movie thought so. Jamey Heath enables him and they both have boundary issues. And when they realized people might find this stuff out about them, their egos led them to hire sketchy people like Melissa Nathan, Jed Wallace, and Bryan Freedman to try and destroy Lively's reputation so no one would ever believe her. And they basically got away with it.

I do think Lively lost this case, the 47.1 motion not withstanding (we'll see, I have no faith), and I think that's fundamentally unfair because: she was right.

But life is unfair and 2026 America is not a bastion of truth or justice. I hate it, but I'm not going to pretend it's anything else.

Yep. And Lively personally is not very sympathetic so whatever, but the whole thing is just skeevy.

PP and yes. Lively is rich and very privileged and can be hard to like. I wasn't a Lively fan before all this and I continue to see her as problematic in a lot of ways. I've never even seen IEWU because I don't really like her as an actress. But she was right about Justin. And I actually have arrived at a point of respect for her because she has toughed it out through all of this when she didn't have to, and could have just run off with her money and put it all behind her. Maybe it's because she's privileged and knew she'd been wronged and wanted justice -- I would never have pursued this as she did because I don't have that kind of money or privilege or, frankly, self esteem and would have just rolled over and walked away. But that's why, in a way, I'm glad it was her. She never backed down and she still isn't. The settlement is disappointing and I really wanted the trial but she's still asserting herself. And again, she's right, so good for her.

One thing about the settlement having no NDA is that I'd like to see a tell all from Blake after all this. A book, a movie, something. Bring on Jenny Slate, Alex Saks, Liz Plank. Tell the truth about what happened in a way that will actually make people listen (because a lawsuit didn't work, people didn't actually read the documents and just ate up whatever narrative Justin's side sold via TikTok and YouTube). I think it could be really interesting, and they could use all the evidence from the lawsuit that is part of the public record to expose people like Jed and Melissa Nathan. Play that freaking audio of Steve Sarowitz. I would pay money for that book or see that movie in a theater. I really would. I'd love to see Blake find a way to win this thing in the court of public opinion, especially because I think what has happened legally has been a real miscarriage of justice (at least thus far).

Blake cannot win this in the court of public opinion because the facts aren’t on her side. Have the past two years taught you nothing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively was right about Justin. He is porn and sex obsessed and he was trying to turn a movie about DV into a vehicle for his sexual fantasies. He was gross and many of the women on the movie thought so. Jamey Heath enables him and they both have boundary issues. And when they realized people might find this stuff out about them, their egos led them to hire sketchy people like Melissa Nathan, Jed Wallace, and Bryan Freedman to try and destroy Lively's reputation so no one would ever believe her. And they basically got away with it.

I do think Lively lost this case, the 47.1 motion not withstanding (we'll see, I have no faith), and I think that's fundamentally unfair because: she was right.

But life is unfair and 2026 America is not a bastion of truth or justice. I hate it, but I'm not going to pretend it's anything else.

DP. This is a huge masterclass in gaslighting. I don’t even know what you and PP are talking about at this point, but none of this is factoring into the judge’s decision on 47.1. It feels like Blake fans are doing anything to change the subject b/c staying on topic is inconvenient for them.

The question is can a California law apply to something that happened in New Jersey (probably not); and if it could, does the law violate the constitution (yes, Justin’s first amendment rights); is it justifiable as an anti slap law, which has lots of precedent and is widely accepted (no, 47.1 is fundamentally different from other anti slap laws b/c it gives preference to a specific kind of speech and calls for more than simple fee shifting); and if Blake can get past all that (she probably can’t) was her case brought without malice (WF has brought compelling facts including Vanzan and spoliation evidence suggesting it was not.) Also you have to recall Blake was trying to get him fired from wme (remember the Sklenar “when wme drops him” text) and the nyt proudly proclaimed that Justin had gone unscathed until the article dropped and wme cut him. It’s in the article, they made the update, they were proud, just look for yourself. Yet they haven’t updated any of their bad facts.

How can expressing my opinion about this case be a "masterclass in gaslighting." I am just an anonymous person on the internet, I have zero power over you and what you think. This is what I really think happened. If you disagree, fine, express your disagreement.

And I wasn't talking about 47.1. I'm talking about my general impressions of what happened here. Here's what I think happened: Justin is a porn and sex obsessed idiot, he was a bad director who treated the women on the movie badly and he deserved to be called out for it, but instead he hired people to smear Blake online and successfully discredited her so most people will never really understand what actually happened. I think that's awful, it makes me mad, but what are you going to do. I mean Trump is president and literally millions of people voted for him in 2024 despite ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE showing what a stupid idea that was, so of course a bunch of idiots online believe Justin. Of course. Again, it's America in 2026. It was so naive of me to ever think Blake would prevail. I thought maybe because she's wealthy and famous she could overcome the cards that are always stacked against women who tell the truth about men like this, but I was obviously wrong. Trump just opened a criminal investigation into the woman he raped. Of course Blake lost. This is the world we live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively was right about Justin. He is porn and sex obsessed and he was trying to turn a movie about DV into a vehicle for his sexual fantasies. He was gross and many of the women on the movie thought so. Jamey Heath enables him and they both have boundary issues. And when they realized people might find this stuff out about them, their egos led them to hire sketchy people like Melissa Nathan, Jed Wallace, and Bryan Freedman to try and destroy Lively's reputation so no one would ever believe her. And they basically got away with it.

I do think Lively lost this case, the 47.1 motion not withstanding (we'll see, I have no faith), and I think that's fundamentally unfair because: she was right.

But life is unfair and 2026 America is not a bastion of truth or justice. I hate it, but I'm not going to pretend it's anything else.

Yep. And Lively personally is not very sympathetic so whatever, but the whole thing is just skeevy.

PP and yes. Lively is rich and very privileged and can be hard to like. I wasn't a Lively fan before all this and I continue to see her as problematic in a lot of ways. I've never even seen IEWU because I don't really like her as an actress. But she was right about Justin. And I actually have arrived at a point of respect for her because she has toughed it out through all of this when she didn't have to, and could have just run off with her money and put it all behind her. Maybe it's because she's privileged and knew she'd been wronged and wanted justice -- I would never have pursued this as she did because I don't have that kind of money or privilege or, frankly, self esteem and would have just rolled over and walked away. But that's why, in a way, I'm glad it was her. She never backed down and she still isn't. The settlement is disappointing and I really wanted the trial but she's still asserting herself. And again, she's right, so good for her.

One thing about the settlement having no NDA is that I'd like to see a tell all from Blake after all this. A book, a movie, something. Bring on Jenny Slate, Alex Saks, Liz Plank. Tell the truth about what happened in a way that will actually make people listen (because a lawsuit didn't work, people didn't actually read the documents and just ate up whatever narrative Justin's side sold via TikTok and YouTube). I think it could be really interesting, and they could use all the evidence from the lawsuit that is part of the public record to expose people like Jed and Melissa Nathan. Play that freaking audio of Steve Sarowitz. I would pay money for that book or see that movie in a theater. I really would. I'd love to see Blake find a way to win this thing in the court of public opinion, especially because I think what has happened legally has been a real miscarriage of justice (at least thus far).

Blake cannot win this in the court of public opinion because the facts aren’t on her side. Have the past two years taught you nothing?

The facts are on her side. No one cares about the facts. The last few pages have shown that Justin was 100% pushing to make this DV movie into an R-rated sex fest, over the objections of every major woman involved in the movie. That's what happened! And there is written evidence of this, that you can read. And yet you still don't believe it.

Sometimes, the people with the facts on their side lose. This is one of those times. People HATE women. Women hate women. Jen Abel was right-- people online love to hate women. You hate women. You hate Blake. And all of that overrides the fact that Justin Baldoni is a gross perverted who harassed women. And you just don't care. You will lionize this man, this stupid, not-worth-it man, rather than admit that he mistreated a woman.

You don't care about facts. This is about your feelings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively was right about Justin. He is porn and sex obsessed and he was trying to turn a movie about DV into a vehicle for his sexual fantasies. He was gross and many of the women on the movie thought so. Jamey Heath enables him and they both have boundary issues. And when they realized people might find this stuff out about them, their egos led them to hire sketchy people like Melissa Nathan, Jed Wallace, and Bryan Freedman to try and destroy Lively's reputation so no one would ever believe her. And they basically got away with it.

I do think Lively lost this case, the 47.1 motion not withstanding (we'll see, I have no faith), and I think that's fundamentally unfair because: she was right.

But life is unfair and 2026 America is not a bastion of truth or justice. I hate it, but I'm not going to pretend it's anything else.

DP. This is a huge masterclass in gaslighting. I don’t even know what you and PP are talking about at this point, but none of this is factoring into the judge’s decision on 47.1. It feels like Blake fans are doing anything to change the subject b/c staying on topic is inconvenient for them.

The question is can a California law apply to something that happened in New Jersey (probably not); and if it could, does the law violate the constitution (yes, Justin’s first amendment rights); is it justifiable as an anti slap law, which has lots of precedent and is widely accepted (no, 47.1 is fundamentally different from other anti slap laws b/c it gives preference to a specific kind of speech and calls for more than simple fee shifting); and if Blake can get past all that (she probably can’t) was her case brought without malice (WF has brought compelling facts including Vanzan and spoliation evidence suggesting it was not.) Also you have to recall Blake was trying to get him fired from wme (remember the Sklenar “when wme drops him” text) and the nyt proudly proclaimed that Justin had gone unscathed until the article dropped and wme cut him. It’s in the article, they made the update, they were proud, just look for yourself. Yet they haven’t updated any of their bad facts.

How can expressing my opinion about this case be a "masterclass in gaslighting." I am just an anonymous person on the internet, I have zero power over you and what you think. This is what I really think happened. If you disagree, fine, express your disagreement.

And I wasn't talking about 47.1. I'm talking about my general impressions of what happened here. Here's what I think happened: Justin is a porn and sex obsessed idiot, he was a bad director who treated the women on the movie badly and he deserved to be called out for it, but instead he hired people to smear Blake online and successfully discredited her so most people will never really understand what actually happened. I think that's awful, it makes me mad, but what are you going to do. I mean Trump is president and literally millions of people voted for him in 2024 despite ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE showing what a stupid idea that was, so of course a bunch of idiots online believe Justin. Of course. Again, it's America in 2026. It was so naive of me to ever think Blake would prevail. I thought maybe because she's wealthy and famous she could overcome the cards that are always stacked against women who tell the truth about men like this, but I was obviously wrong. Trump just opened a criminal investigation into the woman he raped. Of course Blake lost. This is the world we live in.

It’s a masterclass in gaslighting because you’re twisting the facts. The funny thing is we’ve all moved on and have no interest in re-litigating these points with you so you probably feel like you’re winning these arguments. But they were addressed by the judge and the SH claims were dismissed. The rest will never get addressed because Blake dropped her case for no money.

We’re focused on what’s next (47.1) but you don’t want to talk about that b/c you know it’s a loser. Instead you lament that no one reads the documents, which isn’t true b/c I’ve followed this case closely. Or that we’re all MAGA, which is also not true. And that women simply can’t catch a break in Trump’s America, and by women you’re undoubtedly talking about white women b/c most people supporting Blake at this point have no ability to see the perspective of black women or black people in general. We’ve seen Blake’s kind for centuries and we don’t like it.

And while you’re throwing around MAGA accusations, you might want the reality check that black women have been the Democrats most loyal and reliable voting base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively was right about Justin. He is porn and sex obsessed and he was trying to turn a movie about DV into a vehicle for his sexual fantasies. He was gross and many of the women on the movie thought so. Jamey Heath enables him and they both have boundary issues. And when they realized people might find this stuff out about them, their egos led them to hire sketchy people like Melissa Nathan, Jed Wallace, and Bryan Freedman to try and destroy Lively's reputation so no one would ever believe her. And they basically got away with it.

I do think Lively lost this case, the 47.1 motion not withstanding (we'll see, I have no faith), and I think that's fundamentally unfair because: she was right.

But life is unfair and 2026 America is not a bastion of truth or justice. I hate it, but I'm not going to pretend it's anything else.

DP. This is a huge masterclass in gaslighting. I don’t even know what you and PP are talking about at this point, but none of this is factoring into the judge’s decision on 47.1. It feels like Blake fans are doing anything to change the subject b/c staying on topic is inconvenient for them.

The question is can a California law apply to something that happened in New Jersey (probably not); and if it could, does the law violate the constitution (yes, Justin’s first amendment rights); is it justifiable as an anti slap law, which has lots of precedent and is widely accepted (no, 47.1 is fundamentally different from other anti slap laws b/c it gives preference to a specific kind of speech and calls for more than simple fee shifting); and if Blake can get past all that (she probably can’t) was her case brought without malice (WF has brought compelling facts including Vanzan and spoliation evidence suggesting it was not.) Also you have to recall Blake was trying to get him fired from wme (remember the Sklenar “when wme drops him” text) and the nyt proudly proclaimed that Justin had gone unscathed until the article dropped and wme cut him. It’s in the article, they made the update, they were proud, just look for yourself. Yet they haven’t updated any of their bad facts.

How can expressing my opinion about this case be a "masterclass in gaslighting." I am just an anonymous person on the internet, I have zero power over you and what you think. This is what I really think happened. If you disagree, fine, express your disagreement.

And I wasn't talking about 47.1. I'm talking about my general impressions of what happened here. Here's what I think happened: Justin is a porn and sex obsessed idiot, he was a bad director who treated the women on the movie badly and he deserved to be called out for it, but instead he hired people to smear Blake online and successfully discredited her so most people will never really understand what actually happened. I think that's awful, it makes me mad, but what are you going to do. I mean Trump is president and literally millions of people voted for him in 2024 despite ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE showing what a stupid idea that was, so of course a bunch of idiots online believe Justin. Of course. Again, it's America in 2026. It was so naive of me to ever think Blake would prevail. I thought maybe because she's wealthy and famous she could overcome the cards that are always stacked against women who tell the truth about men like this, but I was obviously wrong. Trump just opened a criminal investigation into the woman he raped. Of course Blake lost. This is the world we live in.

It’s a masterclass in gaslighting because you’re twisting the facts. The funny thing is we’ve all moved on and have no interest in re-litigating these points with you so you probably feel like you’re winning these arguments. But they were addressed by the judge and the SH claims were dismissed. The rest will never get addressed because Blake dropped her case for no money.

We’re focused on what’s next (47.1) but you don’t want to talk about that b/c you know it’s a loser. Instead you lament that no one reads the documents, which isn’t true b/c I’ve followed this case closely. Or that we’re all MAGA, which is also not true. And that women simply can’t catch a break in Trump’s America, and by women you’re undoubtedly talking about white women b/c most people supporting Blake at this point have no ability to see the perspective of black women or black people in general. We’ve seen Blake’s kind for centuries and we don’t like it.

And while you’re throwing around MAGA accusations, you might want the reality check that black women have been the Democrats most loyal and reliable voting base.

What facts am I twisting? I am stating my opinion.

I don't think you are MAGA, but I think what happened with the online commentary on this case is similar and parallel to what has happened with people being misled by Trump and the MAGA movement into supporting MAGA. I wasn't making a commentary on race at all and I would support a black woman in Blake's position every bit as much as I support Blake. I do think Blake can be a tone-deaf white person and has done stupid tone-deaf white person things, but a tone-deaf white person can be sexually harassed. Which Blake was. But yes, please, call both Blake and I racist to distract from the facts:

Blake was right about Justin Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively was right about Justin. He is porn and sex obsessed and he was trying to turn a movie about DV into a vehicle for his sexual fantasies. He was gross and many of the women on the movie thought so. Jamey Heath enables him and they both have boundary issues. And when they realized people might find this stuff out about them, their egos led them to hire sketchy people like Melissa Nathan, Jed Wallace, and Bryan Freedman to try and destroy Lively's reputation so no one would ever believe her. And they basically got away with it.

I do think Lively lost this case, the 47.1 motion not withstanding (we'll see, I have no faith), and I think that's fundamentally unfair because: she was right.

But life is unfair and 2026 America is not a bastion of truth or justice. I hate it, but I'm not going to pretend it's anything else.

DP. This is a huge masterclass in gaslighting. I don’t even know what you and PP are talking about at this point, but none of this is factoring into the judge’s decision on 47.1. It feels like Blake fans are doing anything to change the subject b/c staying on topic is inconvenient for them.

The question is can a California law apply to something that happened in New Jersey (probably not); and if it could, does the law violate the constitution (yes, Justin’s first amendment rights); is it justifiable as an anti slap law, which has lots of precedent and is widely accepted (no, 47.1 is fundamentally different from other anti slap laws b/c it gives preference to a specific kind of speech and calls for more than simple fee shifting); and if Blake can get past all that (she probably can’t) was her case brought without malice (WF has brought compelling facts including Vanzan and spoliation evidence suggesting it was not.) Also you have to recall Blake was trying to get him fired from wme (remember the Sklenar “when wme drops him” text) and the nyt proudly proclaimed that Justin had gone unscathed until the article dropped and wme cut him. It’s in the article, they made the update, they were proud, just look for yourself. Yet they haven’t updated any of their bad facts.

How can expressing my opinion about this case be a "masterclass in gaslighting." I am just an anonymous person on the internet, I have zero power over you and what you think. This is what I really think happened. If you disagree, fine, express your disagreement.

And I wasn't talking about 47.1. I'm talking about my general impressions of what happened here. Here's what I think happened: Justin is a porn and sex obsessed idiot, he was a bad director who treated the women on the movie badly and he deserved to be called out for it, but instead he hired people to smear Blake online and successfully discredited her so most people will never really understand what actually happened. I think that's awful, it makes me mad, but what are you going to do. I mean Trump is president and literally millions of people voted for him in 2024 despite ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE showing what a stupid idea that was, so of course a bunch of idiots online believe Justin. Of course. Again, it's America in 2026. It was so naive of me to ever think Blake would prevail. I thought maybe because she's wealthy and famous she could overcome the cards that are always stacked against women who tell the truth about men like this, but I was obviously wrong. Trump just opened a criminal investigation into the woman he raped. Of course Blake lost. This is the world we live in.

It’s a masterclass in gaslighting because you’re twisting the facts. The funny thing is we’ve all moved on and have no interest in re-litigating these points with you so you probably feel like you’re winning these arguments. But they were addressed by the judge and the SH claims were dismissed. The rest will never get addressed because Blake dropped her case for no money.

We’re focused on what’s next (47.1) but you don’t want to talk about that b/c you know it’s a loser. Instead you lament that no one reads the documents, which isn’t true b/c I’ve followed this case closely. Or that we’re all MAGA, which is also not true. And that women simply can’t catch a break in Trump’s America, and by women you’re undoubtedly talking about white women b/c most people supporting Blake at this point have no ability to see the perspective of black women or black people in general. We’ve seen Blake’s kind for centuries and we don’t like it.

And while you’re throwing around MAGA accusations, you might want the reality check that black women have been the Democrats most loyal and reliable voting base.

What facts am I twisting? I am stating my opinion.

I don't think you are MAGA, but I think what happened with the online commentary on this case is similar and parallel to what has happened with people being misled by Trump and the MAGA movement into supporting MAGA. I wasn't making a commentary on race at all and I would support a black woman in Blake's position every bit as much as I support Blake. I do think Blake can be a tone-deaf white person and has done stupid tone-deaf white person things, but a tone-deaf white person can be sexually harassed. Which Blake was. But yes, please, call both Blake and I racist to distract from the facts:

Blake was right about Justin Baldoni.

Who’s distracting from the facts? Was it not you who brought Trump and MAGA into this in the first place? And yes Blake is a racist. And I have no interest in twisting the law and eroding our constitutional protections so that a racist, privileged, tone deaf woman can steal a movie. I’ll stand by the first amendment instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively was right about Justin. He is porn and sex obsessed and he was trying to turn a movie about DV into a vehicle for his sexual fantasies. He was gross and many of the women on the movie thought so. Jamey Heath enables him and they both have boundary issues. And when they realized people might find this stuff out about them, their egos led them to hire sketchy people like Melissa Nathan, Jed Wallace, and Bryan Freedman to try and destroy Lively's reputation so no one would ever believe her. And they basically got away with it.

I do think Lively lost this case, the 47.1 motion not withstanding (we'll see, I have no faith), and I think that's fundamentally unfair because: she was right.

But life is unfair and 2026 America is not a bastion of truth or justice. I hate it, but I'm not going to pretend it's anything else.

Yep. And Lively personally is not very sympathetic so whatever, but the whole thing is just skeevy.

PP and yes. Lively is rich and very privileged and can be hard to like. I wasn't a Lively fan before all this and I continue to see her as problematic in a lot of ways. I've never even seen IEWU because I don't really like her as an actress. But she was right about Justin. And I actually have arrived at a point of respect for her because she has toughed it out through all of this when she didn't have to, and could have just run off with her money and put it all behind her. Maybe it's because she's privileged and knew she'd been wronged and wanted justice -- I would never have pursued this as she did because I don't have that kind of money or privilege or, frankly, self esteem and would have just rolled over and walked away. But that's why, in a way, I'm glad it was her. She never backed down and she still isn't.[i] The settlement is disappointing and I really wanted the trial but she's still asserting herself. And again, she's right, so good for her.

One thing about the settlement having no NDA is that I'd like to see a tell all from Blake after all this. A book, a movie, something. Bring on Jenny Slate, Alex Saks, Liz Plank. Tell the truth about what happened in a way that will actually make people listen (because a lawsuit didn't work, people didn't actually read the documents and just ate up whatever narrative Justin's side sold via TikTok and YouTube). I think it could be really interesting, and they could use all the evidence from the lawsuit that is part of the public record to expose people like Jed and Melissa Nathan. Play that freaking audio of Steve Sarowitz. I would pay money for that book or see that movie in a theater. I really would. I'd love to see Blake find a way to win this thing in the court of public opinion, especially because I think what has happened legally has been a real miscarriage of justice (at least thus far).

Pure comedy, thanks for the laugh! Blake cut and run right before it was her "chance" to tell her story to the jury. Story being the operative word. Literally settled for nothing and ran off to the Met Gala. Your continued glazing of this liar is, well, sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively was right about Justin. He is porn and sex obsessed and he was trying to turn a movie about DV into a vehicle for his sexual fantasies. He was gross and many of the women on the movie thought so. Jamey Heath enables him and they both have boundary issues. And when they realized people might find this stuff out about them, their egos led them to hire sketchy people like Melissa Nathan, Jed Wallace, and Bryan Freedman to try and destroy Lively's reputation so no one would ever believe her. And they basically got away with it.

I do think Lively lost this case, the 47.1 motion not withstanding (we'll see, I have no faith), and I think that's fundamentally unfair because: she was right.

But life is unfair and 2026 America is not a bastion of truth or justice. I hate it, but I'm not going to pretend it's anything else.

DP. This is a huge masterclass in gaslighting. I don’t even know what you and PP are talking about at this point, but none of this is factoring into the judge’s decision on 47.1. It feels like Blake fans are doing anything to change the subject b/c staying on topic is inconvenient for them.

The question is can a California law apply to something that happened in New Jersey (probably not); and if it could, does the law violate the constitution (yes, Justin’s first amendment rights); is it justifiable as an anti slap law, which has lots of precedent and is widely accepted (no, 47.1 is fundamentally different from other anti slap laws b/c it gives preference to a specific kind of speech and calls for more than simple fee shifting); and if Blake can get past all that (she probably can’t) was her case brought without malice (WF has brought compelling facts including Vanzan and spoliation evidence suggesting it was not.) Also you have to recall Blake was trying to get him fired from wme (remember the Sklenar “when wme drops him” text) and the nyt proudly proclaimed that Justin had gone unscathed until the article dropped and wme cut him. It’s in the article, they made the update, they were proud, just look for yourself. Yet they haven’t updated any of their bad facts.

How can expressing my opinion about this case be a "masterclass in gaslighting." I am just an anonymous person on the internet, I have zero power over you and what you think. This is what I really think happened. If you disagree, fine, express your disagreement.

And I wasn't talking about 47.1. I'm talking about my general impressions of what happened here. Here's what I think happened: Justin is a porn and sex obsessed idiot, he was a bad director who treated the women on the movie badly and he deserved to be called out for it, but instead he hired people to smear Blake online and successfully discredited her so most people will never really understand what actually happened. I think that's awful, it makes me mad, but what are you going to do. I mean Trump is president and literally millions of people voted for him in 2024 despite ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE showing what a stupid idea that was, so of course a bunch of idiots online believe Justin. Of course. Again, it's America in 2026. It was so naive of me to ever think Blake would prevail. I thought maybe because she's wealthy and famous she could overcome the cards that are always stacked against women who tell the truth about men like this, but I was obviously wrong. Trump just opened a criminal investigation into the woman he raped. Of course Blake lost. This is the world we live in.

Dp, but you have a clear allergy to facts, and live in fantasy world bubble where all men are bad, and all women are virturous (unless they disagree with you, then they are evil MAGA). Anyway, hope you are more engaged with reality in real life.

[Anonymous]

Literally nothing was stopping Blake from taking the stand and presenting evidence to support her complaint. She chose not to, and she chose not to without getting a dime in return. No one does that when they are telling the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for you to say, "Oh, I was wrong. It turns out Colleen Hoover did tell Justin to tone down the sex in the movie, and it turns out Sony was not pushing for the R rating -- Justin was. I see now that I had incorrect ideas about what happened and might not not know as much as I thought I did."

But if you need to spin out first, ok I guess. Do you need to talk about how Ryan is closeted and they're gonna get divorced and how hot Justin's abs are? Go for it babe. I know it's hard.

I wasn’t wrong though. Sony and Colleen and Blake seemed to have different visions. You will recall Colleen handpicked Justin to tell the story and pushed him to play the lead. Why rewrite history.

Justin realized early on Blake was very self conscious and was more than willing to work with her. She was the one who was improvising kissing scenes with him. You are just leaving a lot out to fit your version of the story.

The rooftop scene she sent over had that totally gross and inappropriate term. And the scene was over the top.

You were 100% wrong. I told you Colleen had told Justin that she wanted less sex and more romance/build up in the movie, and you told me it "never happened." I then proved it happened with the actual texts where she said this, and you now claim you never said what you obviously said -- it's in writing in this thread, and then claimed Sony was forcing Justin to make an R rated film. I then disproved that with direct evidence showing that it was the opposite -- Justin wanted to do an R rated film and Sony was skeptical, and their only hang up about a PG-13 film was whether Colleen felt her book readers would be interested. And she very firmly said YES, book readers wanted a PG-13 film because the sex was way less important than the emotion, and Colleen herself wanted teens to be able to go.

Blake wanted a PG-13 film with less sex, probably partly because she just doesn't do a lot of sex/nudity in movies (a known issue that Wayfarer must have been aware of when they hired her) but also she seemed to just think it was a better way to tell a story about a woman who is a DV survivor for an audience of mostly women.

Colleen wanted a PG-13 film because as an experienced romance writer and a consumer of both romance books and movies, she truly believed that audiences (women like her) would prefer more emotion and less sex, and in fact would feel uncomfortable or put off by too much sex or too explicit sex, and she wanted teens to be able to see the movie and for it to be accessible.

And Sony was a little more ambivalent but was not pushing for an R film at all, they viewed it from a business standpoint in terms of what their ratings team would recommend/approve, how the movie would sell, and what Colleen's built in audience would want.

They were all essentially in agreement.

Only Justin wanted to make a graphic, highly sexed, R rated movie. And there are THREE women telling him that maybe that's not a good idea, and he thinks they are all wrong.

Maybe Justin wasn't the right director for this film.

Well, Colleen choose him to be the director. So maybe you should trust women to make decisions about adapting their work into movies.

You are missing the 30,000 foot view. Getting hung up on this one fact and missing that none of the case was about this. Blake had a lot of complaints about what happened on the set, but the crux of the case was not that she felt forced to do sex scenes.

Justin met with the intimacy coordinator and expressed a vision for more of a female centric version of things than what we usually see and they agreed on an oral scene with Blake. Blake was not interested in doing it….so they dropped it. that was not part of her complaint, she just didn’t want to do it. Much like the lift scene. It was just dropped, and it wasn’t a point of contention.

So I don’t know why you are harping on this point as if it makes a difference in the case. If you want me to admit, I didn’t remember that exchange between Colleen and Justin, OK I will admit that. Thank you for bringing that up. But it doesn’t change the basic tenant that you are wrong that Blake was trying to save them all from this terrible sex filled movie and that was what the lawsuit was about.

You’ve also are conveniently leaving out that has the director, it was literally Justin‘s job to align on Sony with some things and they were pushing for a very different vision. Have some sympathy for him trying to meet people in the middle because that’s what he was trying to do. And even if there were another director, they would be in that exact same position between Blake and Sony and the two very different visions.

As the Sony executive said, respectively, there is no process that would work for Blake. And that is why she will never step foot on another film set again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively was right about Justin. He is porn and sex obsessed and he was trying to turn a movie about DV into a vehicle for his sexual fantasies. He was gross and many of the women on the movie thought so. Jamey Heath enables him and they both have boundary issues. And when they realized people might find this stuff out about them, their egos led them to hire sketchy people like Melissa Nathan, Jed Wallace, and Bryan Freedman to try and destroy Lively's reputation so no one would ever believe her. And they basically got away with it.

I do think Lively lost this case, the 47.1 motion not withstanding (we'll see, I have no faith), and I think that's fundamentally unfair because: she was right.

But life is unfair and 2026 America is not a bastion of truth or justice. I hate it, but I'm not going to pretend it's anything else.

DP. This is a huge masterclass in gaslighting. I don’t even know what you and PP are talking about at this point, but none of this is factoring into the judge’s decision on 47.1. It feels like Blake fans are doing anything to change the subject b/c staying on topic is inconvenient for them.

The question is can a California law apply to something that happened in New Jersey (probably not); and if it could, does the law violate the constitution (yes, Justin’s first amendment rights); is it justifiable as an anti slap law, which has lots of precedent and is widely accepted (no, 47.1 is fundamentally different from other anti slap laws b/c it gives preference to a specific kind of speech and calls for more than simple fee shifting); and if Blake can get past all that (she probably can’t) was her case brought without malice (WF has brought compelling facts including Vanzan and spoliation evidence suggesting it was not.) Also you have to recall Blake was trying to get him fired from wme (remember the Sklenar “when wme drops him” text) and the nyt proudly proclaimed that Justin had gone unscathed until the article dropped and wme cut him. It’s in the article, they made the update, they were proud, just look for yourself. Yet they haven’t updated any of their bad facts.

How can expressing my opinion about this case be a "masterclass in gaslighting." I am just an anonymous person on the internet, I have zero power over you and what you think. This is what I really think happened. If you disagree, fine, express your disagreement.

And I wasn't talking about 47.1. I'm talking about my general impressions of what happened here. Here's what I think happened: Justin is a porn and sex obsessed idiot, he was a bad director who treated the women on the movie badly and he deserved to be called out for it, but instead he hired people to smear Blake online and successfully discredited her so most people will never really understand what actually happened. I think that's awful, it makes me mad, but what are you going to do. I mean Trump is president and literally millions of people voted for him in 2024 despite ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE showing what a stupid idea that was, so of course a bunch of idiots online believe Justin. Of course. Again, it's America in 2026. It was so naive of me to ever think Blake would prevail. I thought maybe because she's wealthy and famous she could overcome the cards that are always stacked against women who tell the truth about men like this, but I was obviously wrong. Trump just opened a criminal investigation into the woman he raped. Of course Blake lost. This is the world we live in.

It’s a masterclass in gaslighting because you’re twisting the facts. The funny thing is we’ve all moved on and have no interest in re-litigating these points with you so you probably feel like you’re winning these arguments. But they were addressed by the judge and the SH claims were dismissed. The rest will never get addressed because Blake dropped her case for no money.

We’re focused on what’s next (47.1) but you don’t want to talk about that b/c you know it’s a loser. Instead you lament that no one reads the documents, which isn’t true b/c I’ve followed this case closely. Or that we’re all MAGA, which is also not true. And that women simply can’t catch a break in Trump’s America, and by women you’re undoubtedly talking about white women b/c most people supporting Blake at this point have no ability to see the perspective of black women or black people in general. We’ve seen Blake’s kind for centuries and we don’t like it.

And while you’re throwing around MAGA accusations, you might want the reality check that black women have been the Democrats most loyal and reliable voting base.

What facts am I twisting? I am stating my opinion.

I don't think you are MAGA, but I think what happened with the online commentary on this case is similar and parallel to what has happened with people being misled by Trump and the MAGA movement into supporting MAGA. I wasn't making a commentary on race at all and I would support a black woman in Blake's position every bit as much as I support Blake. I do think Blake can be a tone-deaf white person and has done stupid tone-deaf white person things, but a tone-deaf white person can be sexually harassed. Which Blake was. But yes, please, call both Blake and I racist to distract from the facts:

Blake was right about Justin Baldoni.

Who’s distracting from the facts? Was it not you who brought Trump and MAGA into this in the first place? And yes Blake is a racist. And I have no interest in twisting the law and eroding our constitutional protections so that a racist, privileged, tone deaf woman can steal a movie. I’ll stand by the first amendment instead.

Again, what facts am I twisting? Be specific. I want to understand. I'm stating my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively was right about Justin. He is porn and sex obsessed and he was trying to turn a movie about DV into a vehicle for his sexual fantasies. He was gross and many of the women on the movie thought so. Jamey Heath enables him and they both have boundary issues. And when they realized people might find this stuff out about them, their egos led them to hire sketchy people like Melissa Nathan, Jed Wallace, and Bryan Freedman to try and destroy Lively's reputation so no one would ever believe her. And they basically got away with it.

I do think Lively lost this case, the 47.1 motion not withstanding (we'll see, I have no faith), and I think that's fundamentally unfair because: she was right.

But life is unfair and 2026 America is not a bastion of truth or justice. I hate it, but I'm not going to pretend it's anything else.

DP. This is a huge masterclass in gaslighting. I don’t even know what you and PP are talking about at this point, but none of this is factoring into the judge’s decision on 47.1. It feels like Blake fans are doing anything to change the subject b/c staying on topic is inconvenient for them.

The question is can a California law apply to something that happened in New Jersey (probably not); and if it could, does the law violate the constitution (yes, Justin’s first amendment rights); is it justifiable as an anti slap law, which has lots of precedent and is widely accepted (no, 47.1 is fundamentally different from other anti slap laws b/c it gives preference to a specific kind of speech and calls for more than simple fee shifting); and if Blake can get past all that (she probably can’t) was her case brought without malice (WF has brought compelling facts including Vanzan and spoliation evidence suggesting it was not.) Also you have to recall Blake was trying to get him fired from wme (remember the Sklenar “when wme drops him” text) and the nyt proudly proclaimed that Justin had gone unscathed until the article dropped and wme cut him. It’s in the article, they made the update, they were proud, just look for yourself. Yet they haven’t updated any of their bad facts.

How can expressing my opinion about this case be a "masterclass in gaslighting." I am just an anonymous person on the internet, I have zero power over you and what you think. This is what I really think happened. If you disagree, fine, express your disagreement.

And I wasn't talking about 47.1. I'm talking about my general impressions of what happened here. Here's what I think happened: Justin is a porn and sex obsessed idiot, he was a bad director who treated the women on the movie badly and he deserved to be called out for it, but instead he hired people to smear Blake online and successfully discredited her so most people will never really understand what actually happened. I think that's awful, it makes me mad, but what are you going to do. I mean Trump is president and literally millions of people voted for him in 2024 despite ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE showing what a stupid idea that was, so of course a bunch of idiots online believe Justin. Of course. Again, it's America in 2026. It was so naive of me to ever think Blake would prevail. I thought maybe because she's wealthy and famous she could overcome the cards that are always stacked against women who tell the truth about men like this, but I was obviously wrong. Trump just opened a criminal investigation into the woman he raped. Of course Blake lost. This is the world we live in.

It’s a masterclass in gaslighting because you’re twisting the facts. The funny thing is we’ve all moved on and have no interest in re-litigating these points with you so you probably feel like you’re winning these arguments. But they were addressed by the judge and the SH claims were dismissed. The rest will never get addressed because Blake dropped her case for no money.

We’re focused on what’s next (47.1) but you don’t want to talk about that b/c you know it’s a loser. Instead you lament that no one reads the documents, which isn’t true b/c I’ve followed this case closely. Or that we’re all MAGA, which is also not true. And that women simply can’t catch a break in Trump’s America, and by women you’re undoubtedly talking about white women b/c most people supporting Blake at this point have no ability to see the perspective of black women or black people in general. We’ve seen Blake’s kind for centuries and we don’t like it.

And while you’re throwing around MAGA accusations, you might want the reality check that black women have been the Democrats most loyal and reliable voting base.

What facts am I twisting? I am stating my opinion.

I don't think you are MAGA, but I think what happened with the online commentary on this case is similar and parallel to what has happened with people being misled by Trump and the MAGA movement into supporting MAGA. I wasn't making a commentary on race at all and I would support a black woman in Blake's position every bit as much as I support Blake. I do think Blake can be a tone-deaf white person and has done stupid tone-deaf white person things, but a tone-deaf white person can be sexually harassed. Which Blake was. But yes, please, call both Blake and I racist to distract from the facts:

Blake was right about Justin Baldoni.

Who’s distracting from the facts? Was it not you who brought Trump and MAGA into this in the first place? And yes Blake is a racist. And I have no interest in twisting the law and eroding our constitutional protections so that a racist, privileged, tone deaf woman can steal a movie. I’ll stand by the first amendment instead.

Again, what facts am I twisting? Be specific. I want to understand. I'm stating my opinion.

DP, pretty much all of them.