Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sony's vision for the movie was a film that made money. They didn't push for an R rating, and the ONLY reason they ever thought the movie needed more sex is because Justin had told them the book was filled with sex and that Colleen's fans wouldn't accept a movie with less sex. Sony's own ratings team was worried that the amount of explicit sex and language Justin was proposing would get them an R rating. Movies with R ratings are a problem for studios -- it's hard to earn box office because it cuts your target audience down.

So they told Justin to go to Colleen and see if she thought her readers would embrace a movie with less sex. And her response was unequivocal: Yes. In fact, she thought they would prefer it.

Why did Justin want such a sexual movie? Most people who read the book understood that the story was about Lily realizing she was being abused and choosing to leave so that she and her daughter could escape that cycle. It's literally the title of the book and movie. As Colleen says, there are only 2-3 sex scenes in the book and it is not what readers value most. So why is it what he wanted? No one else,including Sony wanted it. Why did he?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sony's vision for the movie was a film that made money. They didn't push for an R rating, and the ONLY reason they ever thought the movie needed more sex is because Justin had told them the book was filled with sex and that Colleen's fans wouldn't accept a movie with less sex. Sony's own ratings team was worried that the amount of explicit sex and language Justin was proposing would get them an R rating. Movies with R ratings are a problem for studios -- it's hard to earn box office because it cuts your target audience down.

So they told Justin to go to Colleen and see if she thought her readers would embrace a movie with less sex. And her response was unequivocal: Yes. In fact, she thought they would prefer it.

Why did Justin want such a sexual movie? Most people who read the book understood that the story was about Lily realizing she was being abused and choosing to leave so that she and her daughter could escape that cycle. It's literally the title of the book and movie. As Colleen says, there are only 2-3 sex scenes in the book and it is not what readers value most. So why is it what he wanted? No one else,including Sony wanted it. Why did he?

Again, the rantings of a woman living in a fact free world. Touch grass.

[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.

I said I have no interest in twisting the law. In several of your earlier posts you said this whole thing was a miscarriage of justice. I disagree. To see things that way you’d have to believe the law should be twisted to favor Blake. But here in real life the law says Blake cannot bring a discrimination claim under employment law b/c SH is inherently about power and she had a lot of power on that set. Blake bots call that a technicality but it’s not. Independent contractors typically don’t qualify for these employment protections but they can, which is why the judge did a full analysis to assess who had the power on that set. It wasn’t just a blanket she’s an IC so doesn’t qualify.

The other law I have no interest in twisting is the constitution. States can give citizens more protection than the constitution but they can’t give citizens less. That’s why 47.1 is unconstitutional, because it is infringing on Justin’s first amendment rights (giving him less protection than the constitution provides).

Blake has sought to leverage her power and her expensive lawyers throughout this entire saga to get her way on the movie and to get the upper hand in the legal process. She’s benefitted from privilege on top of privilege to smear Justin Baldoni first through the NYT and then through this lawsuit, and she wants the law to assist her in preventing Justin from fighting back. She literally wanted to neuter him as it pertains to this case. 47.1 goes too far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's not specific. If I'm really twisting facts and gaslighting, you should be able to explain how. How? I've provided you with clear facts based on actual evidence to show why I think what I think. How have I twisted these facts.

You all post incorrect things all the time. Like the comment above claiming Blake didn't want to meet with the IC at all and so the dropped it. That's not what happened and if you actually looked at the evidence you'd know that. You state it as fact. You are wrong. You are literally twisting facts without evidence. But you don't want to engage the evidence. You want to sit secure in this narrative you were delivered online. Good for you. I don't. I read the evidence and I came to different conclusions. I'm not gaslighting you, I just know more than you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I said I have no interest in twisting the law. In several of your earlier posts you said this whole thing was a miscarriage of justice. I disagree. To see things that way you’d have to believe the law should be twisted to favor Blake. But here in real life the law says Blake cannot bring a discrimination claim under employment law b/c SH is inherently about power and she had a lot of power on that set. Blake bots call that a technicality but it’s not. Independent contractors typically don’t qualify for these employment protections but they can, which is why the judge did a full analysis to assess who had the power on that set. It wasn’t just a blanket she’s an IC so doesn’t qualify.

The other law I have no interest in twisting is the constitution. States can give citizens more protection than the constitution but they can’t give citizens less. That’s why 47.1 is unconstitutional, because it is infringing on Justin’s first amendment rights (giving him less protection than the constitution provides).

Blake has sought to leverage her power and her expensive lawyers throughout this entire saga to get her way on the movie and to get the upper hand in the legal process. She’s benefitted from privilege on top of privilege to smear Justin Baldoni first through the NYT and then through this lawsuit, and she wants the law to assist her in preventing Justin from fighting back. She literally wanted to neuter him as it pertains to this case. 47.1 goes too far.

I don't want to "twist" law. I think the law fails. I think society fails. Sexual harassment cases are notoriously hard to win. Why? Because the moment a woman stands up and says she was harassed, society tries to make it her fault. Was she asking for it? Is she lying? Is she a bad person not deserving of our sympathy? You know women, they make stuff up. What about this poor man? We can't ruin *his* life just because he said a few inappropriate things, maybe crossed a few lines. He didn't mean it. She blew it out of proportion. Really he's the victim.

Every. Damn. Time. A jury found Amber Heard guilty of defaming Johnny Depp for saying she was an abuse survivor even though anyone with brain cells could see he was abusive. The law sucks. Society sucks. Johnny Depp sucks. Justin sucks too.

Go ahead and tell me I'm twisting things, I don't care. I see things clearly. I know what I know. Ask me anything. I'll tell you the truth, but you don't want to hear it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I said I have no interest in twisting the law. In several of your earlier posts you said this whole thing was a miscarriage of justice. I disagree. To see things that way you’d have to believe the law should be twisted to favor Blake. But here in real life the law says Blake cannot bring a discrimination claim under employment law b/c SH is inherently about power and she had a lot of power on that set. Blake bots call that a technicality but it’s not. Independent contractors typically don’t qualify for these employment protections but they can, which is why the judge did a full analysis to assess who had the power on that set. It wasn’t just a blanket she’s an IC so doesn’t qualify.

The other law I have no interest in twisting is the constitution. States can give citizens more protection than the constitution but they can’t give citizens less. That’s why 47.1 is unconstitutional, because it is infringing on Justin’s first amendment rights (giving him less protection than the constitution provides).

Blake has sought to leverage her power and her expensive lawyers throughout this entire saga to get her way on the movie and to get the upper hand in the legal process. She’s benefitted from privilege on top of privilege to smear Justin Baldoni first through the NYT and then through this lawsuit, and she wants the law to assist her in preventing Justin from fighting back. She literally wanted to neuter him as it pertains to this case. 47.1 goes too far.

I don't want to "twist" law. I think the law fails. I think society fails. Sexual harassment cases are notoriously hard to win. Why? Because the moment a woman stands up and says she was harassed, society tries to make it her fault. Was she asking for it? Is she lying? Is she a bad person not deserving of our sympathy? You know women, they make stuff up. What about this poor man? We can't ruin *his* life just because he said a few inappropriate things, maybe crossed a few lines. He didn't mean it. She blew it out of proportion. Really he's the victim.

Every. Damn. Time. A jury found Amber Heard guilty of defaming Johnny Depp for saying she was an abuse survivor even though anyone with brain cells could see he was abusive. The law sucks. Society sucks. Johnny Depp sucks. Justin sucks too.

Go ahead and tell me I'm twisting things, I don't care. I see things clearly. I know what I know. Ask me anything. I'll tell you the truth, but you don't want to hear it.

For the law to work in your world we’d be handing significant power over to a woman who already had all the power and crippling everyone else. Black subpoenaed 107 content creators who had to file motions to quash and the judge denied their requests for fees. Blake’s claim against Justin was dismissed. Her claim against Jed was dismissed. Why does the law (under this delusional 47.1) give her a stronger right to recoup fees than anyone else. No thanks. I’ll pass. The law doesn’t fail. It’s working just fine. This new one just needs to be struck down by the courts (and probably will be).