Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Old interviews of Blake she basically characterizes her mom as a super abrasive and elbowy battle axe. Looks like the apple didn’t fall far from the tree. I would bet anything her stage mom was looped in from the get-go on this scheme.

Her M.O. during most interviews is name dropping her husband and famous friends and using “sarcasm” to bully people and make them uncomfortable. She very clearly gets off on toying with people for sport. It reminds me of Ellen. It’s not humor, it’s a psychopath mean girl who likes flexing her status and kicking down.

Blake is also dumber than a rock. Like legitimately painfully stupid. Stupid and hyper-arrogant, she embodies the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Watch the NYT claim Twohey is just an entertainment reporter, not straight news. lol

Is the legal standard for defamation different? I don't think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting take from Reddit today

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

That's a bunch of self-aggrandizing pablum, I don't care whose "team" you're on at this point. I don't find it informative at all, sorry. This situation is not like that situation. Lively doesn't work for the Times. I also struggle to understand how someone can say simultaneously that they hope this results in a big settlement for Baldoni from the Times AND that they don't want anything to happen to Sullivan. That's not consistent, sorry. If the Times pays Baldoni in a situation where they quite clearly did not defame him, that gets us closer to overturning Sullivan. No.

You can support Baldoni in his suit against Lively without buying the frankly ridiculous argument his team is making that the Times article defamed him. It didn't. They reported on litigation Lively filed against him. I'm sorry that Baldoni's PR people (and Baldoni, for that matter) were so freaking stupid and said all that damning stuff in texts and that the Times got ahold of it, but they did and it did and so it got published. Next time don't be so dumb. Just because someone publishes embarrassing, maybe tortious stuff you definitely did does not make it defamation. Like Lively for sure sent that stupid email about being a khaleesi with dragons, and people reported on it. She sounds like an idiot in that email but she sent it and it's not defamation just because she probably would really prefer no one be able to read it now.

The Times suit is a joke. If you believe in free press, you better hope it gets dismissed now or at summary judgment or at trial because if this crap is deemed defamation then we are in real trouble. I will be so freaking mad if Sullivan gets overturned for some stupid conflict between a couple vapid actors. Enough.

This rant makes no sense. Settling would decrease the likelihood that Sullivan is overturned.

Nope because a settlement takes it out if the hands of the court and indicates the Times did something they should be punished for. The best protection for Sullivan is to have the court apply Sullivan and say "yep, not defamation." Because it's not.

Seriously, Baldoni's beef is with Lively. The NYT just reported on it. You can argue their reporting was biased -- fine, is was a bit biased. But it wasn't defamatory. I'm sick of arguing about it.

[Anonymous]

Blake: Justin is such a monster, based on.. umm.. exaggerated fake and unproven accusations.

Also Blake:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting take from Reddit today

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

That's a bunch of self-aggrandizing pablum, I don't care whose "team" you're on at this point. I don't find it informative at all, sorry. This situation is not like that situation. Lively doesn't work for the Times. I also struggle to understand how someone can say simultaneously that they hope this results in a big settlement for Baldoni from the Times AND that they don't want anything to happen to Sullivan. That's not consistent, sorry. If the Times pays Baldoni in a situation where they quite clearly did not defame him, that gets us closer to overturning Sullivan. No.

You can support Baldoni in his suit against Lively without buying the frankly ridiculous argument his team is making that the Times article defamed him. It didn't. They reported on litigation Lively filed against him. I'm sorry that Baldoni's PR people (and Baldoni, for that matter) were so freaking stupid and said all that damning stuff in texts and that the Times got ahold of it, but they did and it did and so it got published. Next time don't be so dumb. Just because someone publishes embarrassing, maybe tortious stuff you definitely did does not make it defamation. Like Lively for sure sent that stupid email about being a khaleesi with dragons, and people reported on it. She sounds like an idiot in that email but she sent it and it's not defamation just because she probably would really prefer no one be able to read it now.

The Times suit is a joke. If you believe in free press, you better hope it gets dismissed now or at summary judgment or at trial because if this crap is deemed defamation then we are in real trouble. I will be so freaking mad if Sullivan gets overturned for some stupid conflict between a couple vapid actors. Enough.

This rant makes no sense. Settling would decrease the likelihood that Sullivan is overturned.

Nope because a settlement takes it out if the hands of the court and indicates the Times did something they should be punished for. The best protection for Sullivan is to have the court apply Sullivan and say "yep, not defamation." Because it's not.

Seriously, Baldoni's beef is with Lively. The NYT just reported on it. You can argue their reporting was biased -- fine, is was a bit biased. But it wasn't defamatory. I'm sick of arguing about it.

Don’t play dumb. The Times was handed that “scalp”. That was a hit piece intending to permanently destroy Justin’s life and company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake: Justin is such a monster, based on.. umm.. exaggerated fake and unproven accusations.

Also Blake:

I genuinely don’t think Blake is pretty. Take away all the work and the Hollywood glitz and she is so basic. A dime a dozen aging sorority girl mom in the burbs who thinks she’s hot shit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting take from Reddit today

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

That's a bunch of self-aggrandizing pablum, I don't care whose "team" you're on at this point. I don't find it informative at all, sorry. This situation is not like that situation. Lively doesn't work for the Times. I also struggle to understand how someone can say simultaneously that they hope this results in a big settlement for Baldoni from the Times AND that they don't want anything to happen to Sullivan. That's not consistent, sorry. If the Times pays Baldoni in a situation where they quite clearly did not defame him, that gets us closer to overturning Sullivan. No.

You can support Baldoni in his suit against Lively without buying the frankly ridiculous argument his team is making that the Times article defamed him. It didn't. They reported on litigation Lively filed against him. I'm sorry that Baldoni's PR people (and Baldoni, for that matter) were so freaking stupid and said all that damning stuff in texts and that the Times got ahold of it, but they did and it did and so it got published. Next time don't be so dumb. Just because someone publishes embarrassing, maybe tortious stuff you definitely did does not make it defamation. Like Lively for sure sent that stupid email about being a khaleesi with dragons, and people reported on it. She sounds like an idiot in that email but she sent it and it's not defamation just because she probably would really prefer no one be able to read it now.

The Times suit is a joke. If you believe in free press, you better hope it gets dismissed now or at summary judgment or at trial because if this crap is deemed defamation then we are in real trouble. I will be so freaking mad if Sullivan gets overturned for some stupid conflict between a couple vapid actors. Enough.

This rant makes no sense. Settling would decrease the likelihood that Sullivan is overturned.

Nope because a settlement takes it out if the hands of the court and indicates the Times did something they should be punished for. The best protection for Sullivan is to have the court apply Sullivan and say "yep, not defamation." Because it's not.

Seriously, Baldoni's beef is with Lively. The NYT just reported on it. You can argue their reporting was biased -- fine, is was a bit biased. But it wasn't defamatory. I'm sick of arguing about it.

Realistically, the Supreme Court is frothing at the mouth to overturn Sullivan. And any protracted litigation that winds up there is the biggest threat to Sullivan, not settled cases that don’t make it out of federal court.

Couldn’t disagree more about your second paragraph. Both Twomey and the Times were lazy and nearly ruined a man’s life as a result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting take from Reddit today

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

That's a bunch of self-aggrandizing pablum, I don't care whose "team" you're on at this point. I don't find it informative at all, sorry. This situation is not like that situation. Lively doesn't work for the Times. I also struggle to understand how someone can say simultaneously that they hope this results in a big settlement for Baldoni from the Times AND that they don't want anything to happen to Sullivan. That's not consistent, sorry. If the Times pays Baldoni in a situation where they quite clearly did not defame him, that gets us closer to overturning Sullivan. No.

You can support Baldoni in his suit against Lively without buying the frankly ridiculous argument his team is making that the Times article defamed him. It didn't. They reported on litigation Lively filed against him. I'm sorry that Baldoni's PR people (and Baldoni, for that matter) were so freaking stupid and said all that damning stuff in texts and that the Times got ahold of it, but they did and it did and so it got published. Next time don't be so dumb. Just because someone publishes embarrassing, maybe tortious stuff you definitely did does not make it defamation. Like Lively for sure sent that stupid email about being a khaleesi with dragons, and people reported on it. She sounds like an idiot in that email but she sent it and it's not defamation just because she probably would really prefer no one be able to read it now.

The Times suit is a joke. If you believe in free press, you better hope it gets dismissed now or at summary judgment or at trial because if this crap is deemed defamation then we are in real trouble. I will be so freaking mad if Sullivan gets overturned for some stupid conflict between a couple vapid actors. Enough.

This rant makes no sense. Settling would decrease the likelihood that Sullivan is overturned.

Nope because a settlement takes it out if the hands of the court and indicates the Times did something they should be punished for. The best protection for Sullivan is to have the court apply Sullivan and say "yep, not defamation." Because it's not.

Seriously, Baldoni's beef is with Lively. The NYT just reported on it. You can argue their reporting was biased -- fine, is was a bit biased. But it wasn't defamatory. I'm sick of arguing about it.

Realistically, the Supreme Court is frothing at the mouth to overturn Sullivan. And any protracted litigation that winds up there is the biggest threat to Sullivan, not settled cases that don’t make it out of federal court.

Couldn’t disagree more about your second paragraph. Both Twomey and the Times were lazy and nearly ruined a man’s life as a result.

Meant to say district court, not federal court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting take from Reddit today

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

That's a bunch of self-aggrandizing pablum, I don't care whose "team" you're on at this point. I don't find it informative at all, sorry. This situation is not like that situation. Lively doesn't work for the Times. I also struggle to understand how someone can say simultaneously that they hope this results in a big settlement for Baldoni from the Times AND that they don't want anything to happen to Sullivan. That's not consistent, sorry. If the Times pays Baldoni in a situation where they quite clearly did not defame him, that gets us closer to overturning Sullivan. No.

You can support Baldoni in his suit against Lively without buying the frankly ridiculous argument his team is making that the Times article defamed him. It didn't. They reported on litigation Lively filed against him. I'm sorry that Baldoni's PR people (and Baldoni, for that matter) were so freaking stupid and said all that damning stuff in texts and that the Times got ahold of it, but they did and it did and so it got published. Next time don't be so dumb. Just because someone publishes embarrassing, maybe tortious stuff you definitely did does not make it defamation. Like Lively for sure sent that stupid email about being a khaleesi with dragons, and people reported on it. She sounds like an idiot in that email but she sent it and it's not defamation just because she probably would really prefer no one be able to read it now.

The Times suit is a joke. If you believe in free press, you better hope it gets dismissed now or at summary judgment or at trial because if this crap is deemed defamation then we are in real trouble. I will be so freaking mad if Sullivan gets overturned for some stupid conflict between a couple vapid actors. Enough.

This rant makes no sense. Settling would decrease the likelihood that Sullivan is overturned.

Nope because a settlement takes it out if the hands of the court and indicates the Times did something they should be punished for. The best protection for Sullivan is to have the court apply Sullivan and say "yep, not defamation." Because it's not.

Seriously, Baldoni's beef is with Lively. The NYT just reported on it. You can argue their reporting was biased -- fine, is was a bit biased. But it wasn't defamatory. I'm sick of arguing about it.

Realistically, the Supreme Court is frothing at the mouth to overturn Sullivan. And any protracted litigation that winds up there is the biggest threat to Sullivan, not settled cases that don’t make it out of federal court.

Couldn’t disagree more about your second paragraph. Both Twomey and the Times were lazy and nearly ruined a man’s life as a result.

DP. I just see this case as so clean cut. Truth is a defense to defamation. The vast majority of the statements in the article are... true. Lively alleged blah blah blah in her complaint. Nathan and Abel stated XYZ in a text. Lively's forensic reported said something. Plus they are reporting on a legal proceeding. There are some vague statements ("smear campaign") that can reasonably called opinion or a brief summary of the allegations in the complaint. I actually think it fails without even needing to go to public figure actual malice, because they arguably didn't even write anything that was either not true or not opinion.

The article was dishonest because it was drafted in a way that gets the reader to draw certain inferences. The mentions of Flaa are a really clear cut case of that, IMO. In general, the article is very one-sided and would make most people believe Baldoni did in fact harass Lively and executed a PR campaign in retaliation for her complaining about it, causing damages to her, and that she therefore should win her suit. It is unfair and I totally understand why he is upset.

However, for Baldoni to win and Sullivan to be overturned on this case, the Court would essentially be saying: you cannot post true statements of fact in a way that makes someone look bad, you cannot publish an article without giving full and equal time to both sides and teasing out every bit of context up to and including interpretation of emojis, and you cannot report on an administrative complaint without fully litigating all the issues raised in the complaint prior to publication. There's just no way.

There are much more marginal things the Court could do with Sullivan, like dropping or refining the actual malice standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting take from Reddit today

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

That's a bunch of self-aggrandizing pablum, I don't care whose "team" you're on at this point. I don't find it informative at all, sorry. This situation is not like that situation. Lively doesn't work for the Times. I also struggle to understand how someone can say simultaneously that they hope this results in a big settlement for Baldoni from the Times AND that they don't want anything to happen to Sullivan. That's not consistent, sorry. If the Times pays Baldoni in a situation where they quite clearly did not defame him, that gets us closer to overturning Sullivan. No.

You can support Baldoni in his suit against Lively without buying the frankly ridiculous argument his team is making that the Times article defamed him. It didn't. They reported on litigation Lively filed against him. I'm sorry that Baldoni's PR people (and Baldoni, for that matter) were so freaking stupid and said all that damning stuff in texts and that the Times got ahold of it, but they did and it did and so it got published. Next time don't be so dumb. Just because someone publishes embarrassing, maybe tortious stuff you definitely did does not make it defamation. Like Lively for sure sent that stupid email about being a khaleesi with dragons, and people reported on it. She sounds like an idiot in that email but she sent it and it's not defamation just because she probably would really prefer no one be able to read it now.

The Times suit is a joke. If you believe in free press, you better hope it gets dismissed now or at summary judgment or at trial because if this crap is deemed defamation then we are in real trouble. I will be so freaking mad if Sullivan gets overturned for some stupid conflict between a couple vapid actors. Enough.

This rant makes no sense. Settling would decrease the likelihood that Sullivan is overturned.

Nope because a settlement takes it out if the hands of the court and indicates the Times did something they should be punished for. The best protection for Sullivan is to have the court apply Sullivan and say "yep, not defamation." Because it's not.

Seriously, Baldoni's beef is with Lively. The NYT just reported on it. You can argue their reporting was biased -- fine, is was a bit biased. But it wasn't defamatory. I'm sick of arguing about it.

Realistically, the Supreme Court is frothing at the mouth to overturn Sullivan. And any protracted litigation that winds up there is the biggest threat to Sullivan, not settled cases that don’t make it out of federal court.

Couldn’t disagree more about your second paragraph. Both Twomey and the Times were lazy and nearly ruined a man’s life as a result.

DP. I just see this case as so clean cut. Truth is a defense to defamation. The vast majority of the statements in the article are... true. Lively alleged blah blah blah in her complaint. Nathan and Abel stated XYZ in a text. Lively's forensic reported said something. Plus they are reporting on a legal proceeding. There are some vague statements ("smear campaign") that can reasonably called opinion or a brief summary of the allegations in the complaint. I actually think it fails without even needing to go to public figure actual malice, because they arguably didn't even write anything that was either not true or not opinion.

The article was dishonest because it was drafted in a way that gets the reader to draw certain inferences. The mentions of Flaa are a really clear cut case of that, IMO. In general, the article is very one-sided and would make most people believe Baldoni did in fact harass Lively and executed a PR campaign in retaliation for her complaining about it, causing damages to her, and that she therefore should win her suit. It is unfair and I totally understand why he is upset.

However, for Baldoni to win and Sullivan to be overturned on this case, the Court would essentially be saying: you cannot post true statements of fact in a way that makes someone look bad, you cannot publish an article without giving full and equal time to both sides and teasing out every bit of context up to and including interpretation of emojis, and you cannot report on an administrative complaint without fully litigating all the issues raised in the complaint prior to publication. There's just no way.

There are much more marginal things the Court could do with Sullivan, like dropping or refining the actual malice standard.

Manipulating texts to change their meaning is problematic and can be defamatory. Sorry you can’t see that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting take from Reddit today

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

That's a bunch of self-aggrandizing pablum, I don't care whose "team" you're on at this point. I don't find it informative at all, sorry. This situation is not like that situation. Lively doesn't work for the Times. I also struggle to understand how someone can say simultaneously that they hope this results in a big settlement for Baldoni from the Times AND that they don't want anything to happen to Sullivan. That's not consistent, sorry. If the Times pays Baldoni in a situation where they quite clearly did not defame him, that gets us closer to overturning Sullivan. No.

You can support Baldoni in his suit against Lively without buying the frankly ridiculous argument his team is making that the Times article defamed him. It didn't. They reported on litigation Lively filed against him. I'm sorry that Baldoni's PR people (and Baldoni, for that matter) were so freaking stupid and said all that damning stuff in texts and that the Times got ahold of it, but they did and it did and so it got published. Next time don't be so dumb. Just because someone publishes embarrassing, maybe tortious stuff you definitely did does not make it defamation. Like Lively for sure sent that stupid email about being a khaleesi with dragons, and people reported on it. She sounds like an idiot in that email but she sent it and it's not defamation just because she probably would really prefer no one be able to read it now.

The Times suit is a joke. If you believe in free press, you better hope it gets dismissed now or at summary judgment or at trial because if this crap is deemed defamation then we are in real trouble. I will be so freaking mad if Sullivan gets overturned for some stupid conflict between a couple vapid actors. Enough.

This rant makes no sense. Settling would decrease the likelihood that Sullivan is overturned.

Nope because a settlement takes it out if the hands of the court and indicates the Times did something they should be punished for. The best protection for Sullivan is to have the court apply Sullivan and say "yep, not defamation." Because it's not.

Seriously, Baldoni's beef is with Lively. The NYT just reported on it. You can argue their reporting was biased -- fine, is was a bit biased. But it wasn't defamatory. I'm sick of arguing about it.

Realistically, the Supreme Court is frothing at the mouth to overturn Sullivan. And any protracted litigation that winds up there is the biggest threat to Sullivan, not settled cases that don’t make it out of federal court.

Couldn’t disagree more about your second paragraph. Both Twomey and the Times were lazy and nearly ruined a man’s life as a result.

DP. I just see this case as so clean cut. Truth is a defense to defamation. The vast majority of the statements in the article are... true. Lively alleged blah blah blah in her complaint. Nathan and Abel stated XYZ in a text. Lively's forensic reported said something. Plus they are reporting on a legal proceeding. There are some vague statements ("smear campaign") that can reasonably called opinion or a brief summary of the allegations in the complaint. I actually think it fails without even needing to go to public figure actual malice, because they arguably didn't even write anything that was either not true or not opinion.

The article was dishonest because it was drafted in a way that gets the reader to draw certain inferences. The mentions of Flaa are a really clear cut case of that, IMO. In general, the article is very one-sided and would make most people believe Baldoni did in fact harass Lively and executed a PR campaign in retaliation for her complaining about it, causing damages to her, and that she therefore should win her suit. It is unfair and I totally understand why he is upset.

However, for Baldoni to win and Sullivan to be overturned on this case, the Court would essentially be saying: you cannot post true statements of fact in a way that makes someone look bad, you cannot publish an article without giving full and equal time to both sides and teasing out every bit of context up to and including interpretation of emojis, and you cannot report on an administrative complaint without fully litigating all the issues raised in the complaint prior to publication. There's just no way.

There are much more marginal things the Court could do with Sullivan, like dropping or refining the actual malice standard.

Manipulating texts to change their meaning is problematic and can be defamatory. Sorry you can’t see that.

You can edit documents for things like length, readability, and grammar. AFAIK Baldoni only claims they manipulated texts by stripping them of context, which I addressed. It would be a tall order for courts to say publishers must provide all possible context when publishing a statement.

If they had actually manipulated texts by changing the words to make the meaning different, sure, that could be defamatory but I don't think that's what's being claimed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting take from Reddit today

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

That's a bunch of self-aggrandizing pablum, I don't care whose "team" you're on at this point. I don't find it informative at all, sorry. This situation is not like that situation. Lively doesn't work for the Times. I also struggle to understand how someone can say simultaneously that they hope this results in a big settlement for Baldoni from the Times AND that they don't want anything to happen to Sullivan. That's not consistent, sorry. If the Times pays Baldoni in a situation where they quite clearly did not defame him, that gets us closer to overturning Sullivan. No.

You can support Baldoni in his suit against Lively without buying the frankly ridiculous argument his team is making that the Times article defamed him. It didn't. They reported on litigation Lively filed against him. I'm sorry that Baldoni's PR people (and Baldoni, for that matter) were so freaking stupid and said all that damning stuff in texts and that the Times got ahold of it, but they did and it did and so it got published. Next time don't be so dumb. Just because someone publishes embarrassing, maybe tortious stuff you definitely did does not make it defamation. Like Lively for sure sent that stupid email about being a khaleesi with dragons, and people reported on it. She sounds like an idiot in that email but she sent it and it's not defamation just because she probably would really prefer no one be able to read it now.

The Times suit is a joke. If you believe in free press, you better hope it gets dismissed now or at summary judgment or at trial because if this crap is deemed defamation then we are in real trouble. I will be so freaking mad if Sullivan gets overturned for some stupid conflict between a couple vapid actors. Enough.

This rant makes no sense. Settling would decrease the likelihood that Sullivan is overturned.

Nope because a settlement takes it out if the hands of the court and indicates the Times did something they should be punished for. The best protection for Sullivan is to have the court apply Sullivan and say "yep, not defamation." Because it's not.

Seriously, Baldoni's beef is with Lively. The NYT just reported on it. You can argue their reporting was biased -- fine, is was a bit biased. But it wasn't defamatory. I'm sick of arguing about it.

Realistically, the Supreme Court is frothing at the mouth to overturn Sullivan. And any protracted litigation that winds up there is the biggest threat to Sullivan, not settled cases that don’t make it out of federal court.

Couldn’t disagree more about your second paragraph. Both Twomey and the Times were lazy and nearly ruined a man’s life as a result.

DP. I just see this case as so clean cut. Truth is a defense to defamation. The vast majority of the statements in the article are... true. Lively alleged blah blah blah in her complaint. Nathan and Abel stated XYZ in a text. Lively's forensic reported said something. Plus they are reporting on a legal proceeding. There are some vague statements ("smear campaign") that can reasonably called opinion or a brief summary of the allegations in the complaint. I actually think it fails without even needing to go to public figure actual malice, because they arguably didn't even write anything that was either not true or not opinion.

The article was dishonest because it was drafted in a way that gets the reader to draw certain inferences. The mentions of Flaa are a really clear cut case of that, IMO. In general, the article is very one-sided and would make most people believe Baldoni did in fact harass Lively and executed a PR campaign in retaliation for her complaining about it, causing damages to her, and that she therefore should win her suit. It is unfair and I totally understand why he is upset.

However, for Baldoni to win and Sullivan to be overturned on this case, the Court would essentially be saying: you cannot post true statements of fact in a way that makes someone look bad, you cannot publish an article without giving full and equal time to both sides and teasing out every bit of context up to and including interpretation of emojis, and you cannot report on an administrative complaint without fully litigating all the issues raised in the complaint prior to publication. There's just no way.

There are much more marginal things the Court could do with Sullivan, like dropping or refining the actual malice standard.

Manipulating texts to change their meaning is problematic and can be defamatory. Sorry you can’t see that.

You can edit documents for things like length, readability, and grammar. AFAIK Baldoni only claims they manipulated texts by stripping them of context, which I addressed. It would be a tall order for courts to say publishers must provide all possible context when publishing a statement.

If they had actually manipulated texts by changing the words to make the meaning different, sure, that could be defamatory but I don't think that's what's being claimed.

Totally agree with this and your prior post. Spot on.

There are important press protections at play here that are so much more important than this specific article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting take from Reddit today

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

That's a bunch of self-aggrandizing pablum, I don't care whose "team" you're on at this point. I don't find it informative at all, sorry. This situation is not like that situation. Lively doesn't work for the Times. I also struggle to understand how someone can say simultaneously that they hope this results in a big settlement for Baldoni from the Times AND that they don't want anything to happen to Sullivan. That's not consistent, sorry. If the Times pays Baldoni in a situation where they quite clearly did not defame him, that gets us closer to overturning Sullivan. No.

You can support Baldoni in his suit against Lively without buying the frankly ridiculous argument his team is making that the Times article defamed him. It didn't. They reported on litigation Lively filed against him. I'm sorry that Baldoni's PR people (and Baldoni, for that matter) were so freaking stupid and said all that damning stuff in texts and that the Times got ahold of it, but they did and it did and so it got published. Next time don't be so dumb. Just because someone publishes embarrassing, maybe tortious stuff you definitely did does not make it defamation. Like Lively for sure sent that stupid email about being a khaleesi with dragons, and people reported on it. She sounds like an idiot in that email but she sent it and it's not defamation just because she probably would really prefer no one be able to read it now.

The Times suit is a joke. If you believe in free press, you better hope it gets dismissed now or at summary judgment or at trial because if this crap is deemed defamation then we are in real trouble. I will be so freaking mad if Sullivan gets overturned for some stupid conflict between a couple vapid actors. Enough.

This rant makes no sense. Settling would decrease the likelihood that Sullivan is overturned.

Nope because a settlement takes it out if the hands of the court and indicates the Times did something they should be punished for. The best protection for Sullivan is to have the court apply Sullivan and say "yep, not defamation." Because it's not.

Seriously, Baldoni's beef is with Lively. The NYT just reported on it. You can argue their reporting was biased -- fine, is was a bit biased. But it wasn't defamatory. I'm sick of arguing about it.

Realistically, the Supreme Court is frothing at the mouth to overturn Sullivan. And any protracted litigation that winds up there is the biggest threat to Sullivan, not settled cases that don’t make it out of federal court.

Couldn’t disagree more about your second paragraph. Both Twomey and the Times were lazy and nearly ruined a man’s life as a result.

DP. I just see this case as so clean cut. Truth is a defense to defamation. The vast majority of the statements in the article are... true. Lively alleged blah blah blah in her complaint. Nathan and Abel stated XYZ in a text. Lively's forensic reported said something. Plus they are reporting on a legal proceeding. There are some vague statements ("smear campaign") that can reasonably called opinion or a brief summary of the allegations in the complaint. I actually think it fails without even needing to go to public figure actual malice, because they arguably didn't even write anything that was either not true or not opinion.

The article was dishonest because it was drafted in a way that gets the reader to draw certain inferences. The mentions of Flaa are a really clear cut case of that, IMO. In general, the article is very one-sided and would make most people believe Baldoni did in fact harass Lively and executed a PR campaign in retaliation for her complaining about it, causing damages to her, and that she therefore should win her suit. It is unfair and I totally understand why he is upset.

However, for Baldoni to win and Sullivan to be overturned on this case, the Court would essentially be saying: you cannot post true statements of fact in a way that makes someone look bad, you cannot publish an article without giving full and equal time to both sides and teasing out every bit of context up to and including interpretation of emojis, and you cannot report on an administrative complaint without fully litigating all the issues raised in the complaint prior to publication. There's just no way.

There are much more marginal things the Court could do with Sullivan, like dropping or refining the actual malice standard.

Manipulating texts to change their meaning is problematic and can be defamatory. Sorry you can’t see that.

You can edit documents for things like length, readability, and grammar. AFAIK Baldoni only claims they manipulated texts by stripping them of context, which I addressed. It would be a tall order for courts to say publishers must provide all possible context when publishing a statement.

If they had actually manipulated texts by changing the words to make the meaning different, sure, that could be defamatory but I don't think that's what's being claimed.

Totally agree with this and your prior post. Spot on.

There are important press protections at play here that are so much more important than this specific article.

I disagree. The quality of the print media has really declined over the past two decades, especially with respect to access journalism. Perhaps the media needs a reminder that they are not merely stenographers but also need to distinguish between fact and fiction.

[Anonymous]

Ironic that both Lively and Twohey are industry nepo babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting take from Reddit today

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

That's a bunch of self-aggrandizing pablum, I don't care whose "team" you're on at this point. I don't find it informative at all, sorry. This situation is not like that situation. Lively doesn't work for the Times. I also struggle to understand how someone can say simultaneously that they hope this results in a big settlement for Baldoni from the Times AND that they don't want anything to happen to Sullivan. That's not consistent, sorry. If the Times pays Baldoni in a situation where they quite clearly did not defame him, that gets us closer to overturning Sullivan. No.

You can support Baldoni in his suit against Lively without buying the frankly ridiculous argument his team is making that the Times article defamed him. It didn't. They reported on litigation Lively filed against him. I'm sorry that Baldoni's PR people (and Baldoni, for that matter) were so freaking stupid and said all that damning stuff in texts and that the Times got ahold of it, but they did and it did and so it got published. Next time don't be so dumb. Just because someone publishes embarrassing, maybe tortious stuff you definitely did does not make it defamation. Like Lively for sure sent that stupid email about being a khaleesi with dragons, and people reported on it. She sounds like an idiot in that email but she sent it and it's not defamation just because she probably would really prefer no one be able to read it now.

The Times suit is a joke. If you believe in free press, you better hope it gets dismissed now or at summary judgment or at trial because if this crap is deemed defamation then we are in real trouble. I will be so freaking mad if Sullivan gets overturned for some stupid conflict between a couple vapid actors. Enough.

This rant makes no sense. Settling would decrease the likelihood that Sullivan is overturned.

Nope because a settlement takes it out if the hands of the court and indicates the Times did something they should be punished for. The best protection for Sullivan is to have the court apply Sullivan and say "yep, not defamation." Because it's not.

Seriously, Baldoni's beef is with Lively. The NYT just reported on it. You can argue their reporting was biased -- fine, is was a bit biased. But it wasn't defamatory. I'm sick of arguing about it.

Realistically, the Supreme Court is frothing at the mouth to overturn Sullivan. And any protracted litigation that winds up there is the biggest threat to Sullivan, not settled cases that don’t make it out of federal court.

Couldn’t disagree more about your second paragraph. Both Twomey and the Times were lazy and nearly ruined a man’s life as a result.

DP. I just see this case as so clean cut. Truth is a defense to defamation. The vast majority of the statements in the article are... true. Lively alleged blah blah blah in her complaint. Nathan and Abel stated XYZ in a text. Lively's forensic reported said something. Plus they are reporting on a legal proceeding. There are some vague statements ("smear campaign") that can reasonably called opinion or a brief summary of the allegations in the complaint. I actually think it fails without even needing to go to public figure actual malice, because they arguably didn't even write anything that was either not true or not opinion.

The article was dishonest because it was drafted in a way that gets the reader to draw certain inferences. The mentions of Flaa are a really clear cut case of that, IMO. In general, the article is very one-sided and would make most people believe Baldoni did in fact harass Lively and executed a PR campaign in retaliation for her complaining about it, causing damages to her, and that she therefore should win her suit. It is unfair and I totally understand why he is upset.

However, for Baldoni to win and Sullivan to be overturned on this case, the Court would essentially be saying: you cannot post true statements of fact in a way that makes someone look bad, you cannot publish an article without giving full and equal time to both sides and teasing out every bit of context up to and including interpretation of emojis, and you cannot report on an administrative complaint without fully litigating all the issues raised in the complaint prior to publication. There's just no way.

There are much more marginal things the Court could do with Sullivan, like dropping or refining the actual malice standard.

Manipulating texts to change their meaning is problematic and can be defamatory. Sorry you can’t see that.

You can edit documents for things like length, readability, and grammar. AFAIK Baldoni only claims they manipulated texts by stripping them of context, which I addressed. It would be a tall order for courts to say publishers must provide all possible context when publishing a statement.

If they had actually manipulated texts by changing the words to make the meaning different, sure, that could be defamatory but I don't think that's what's being claimed.

Totally agree with this and your prior post. Spot on.

There are important press protections at play here that are so much more important than this specific article.

We are above reproach. Our rag and the unethical fame whoring nitwits who work here can do whatever they want, from help start wars off disinformation to ruin people’s lives with bogus snipes fed to us by money-hungry Hollywood degenerates, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.