Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ironic that both Lively and Twohey are industry nepo babies.

Birds of a feather. Wonder if Twohey’s husband is somehow involved. He’s in the book industry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ironic that both Lively and Twohey are industry nepo babies.

So is Maggie Haberman.

[Anonymous]

The level of ignorance on this thread is something. How is this case one that would put Sullivan at risk? The issue in Sullivan has to do with public figures and actual malice being required to defame them as a matter of constitutional law. I doubt baldoni is going to claim he’s not a public figure. The issue is irrelevant to this case. Much as many here would like to think this stupid celebrity lawsuit is earth shattering in all ways. It’s just not that important

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The level of ignorance on this thread is something. How is this case one that would put Sullivan at risk? The issue in Sullivan has to do with public figures and actual malice being required to defame them as a matter of constitutional law. I doubt baldoni is going to claim he’s not a public figure. The issue is irrelevant to this case. Much as many here would like to think this stupid celebrity lawsuit is earth shattering in all ways. It’s just not that important

You sound truly lovely.

[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.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The level of ignorance on this thread is something. How is this case one that would put Sullivan at risk? The issue in Sullivan has to do with public figures and actual malice being required to defame them as a matter of constitutional law. I doubt baldoni is going to claim he’s not a public figure. The issue is irrelevant to this case. Much as many here would like to think this stupid celebrity lawsuit is earth shattering in all ways. It’s just not that important

You sound truly lovely.

sorry to burst your bubble

[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.

+1

Did NYT use a lot of these hedge words in the Baldoni exposé?

[Anonymous]

Not a lawyer, but I guess I just don’t understand why someone is saying the New York Times printed facts so can’t be defamatory.

Doesn’t the context matter here? A man is at a workplace and bites into a piece of pizza and says that is HOT! A woman who works with him is standing nearby and gets offended because she believes he is sexually harassing her.

Fact, he did say that, but the contact matters right? I feel like the New York Times and Blake left out a ton of context about many of the things she listed.

[Anonymous]

I disagree that the New York Times presented 100% correct facts. We know that with Justin’s lawsuit, there were several lies in Blake’s complaints that were reported as facts and not checked with anyone else.

It is 100% factually correct to say, Justin Baldoni hired an intimacy coordinator, and Blake lively refused to meet with her.

I’m sure Blake supporters are going, but but but you are leaving out context! She didn’t want to meet in preproduction. But it’s 100% factually correct. And that is what the times did, some of the facts were so skewed without context.

What the times also did is list incidents that defy the reasonable standard of sexual harassment. For example, intimacy coordinators have come out and said they are not needed on set when there is no nudity or sexual simulation. For Blake to demand one on set every day is unreasonable and not a standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a lawyer, but I guess I just don’t understand why someone is saying the New York Times printed facts so can’t be defamatory.

Doesn’t the context matter here? A man is at a workplace and bites into a piece of pizza and says that is HOT! A woman who works with him is standing nearby and gets offended because she believes he is sexually harassing her.

Fact, he did say that, but the contact matters right? I feel like the New York Times and Blake left out a ton of context about many of the things she listed.

This is incredibly reductive, it's impossible to take seriously. Lively was not alleging a single incident of a coworker saying the word hot in her presence. She also has documentation of much of the alleged behavior and was putting her money where her mouth was and actually filing a lawsuit, which is by itself a newsworthy event.

And NYT did offer Wayfarer a chance to or vide context. Twohey sent them emails that list substantially all of the allegations against them. They chose not to provide any context, issued a blanket denial of everything, and accused Lively of lying. And that statement was duly reported as well.

Are you sure you even know what objectivity is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I disagree that the New York Times presented 100% correct facts. We know that with Justin’s lawsuit, there were several lies in Blake’s complaints that were reported as facts and not checked with anyone else.

It is 100% factually correct to say, Justin Baldoni hired an intimacy coordinator, and Blake lively refused to meet with her.

I’m sure Blake supporters are going, but but but you are leaving out context! She didn’t want to meet in preproduction. But it’s 100% factually correct. And that is what the times did, some of the facts were so skewed without context.

What the times also did is list incidents that defy the reasonable standard of sexual harassment. For example, intimacy coordinators have come out and said they are not needed on set when there is no nudity or sexual simulation. For Blake to demand one on set every day is unreasonable and not a standard.

I agree the NYT did not just report facts. But I disagree with you regarding the way the IC was described.

The NYT accurately reported that Lively requested, and received, a full-time IC on the set of the movie. That's true, and she had signed documents to that effect (the 17-point list of demands). But this is not presented by the NYT as standard. The whole point of this mention is that it's not standard to have an IC on set full time, but that Lively felt that the problems on the set from the first few weeks of filming were extensive enough to require this unusual step. And this is accurate -- normally actors don't ask for full time ICs, and normally they don't get them. But it happened on IEWU because Lively felt Baldoni and Heath violated boundaries even when filming scenes without scripted intimacy or nudity. That is what happened and that's what the Times reported.

I do agree the Times article was slanted and didn't include context that might mitigate some of Lively's narrative. But I don't think this is a good example of the Times misrepresenting facts. I think that aspect of the story is pretty accurate even with context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I disagree that the New York Times presented 100% correct facts. We know that with Justin’s lawsuit, there were several lies in Blake’s complaints that were reported as facts and not checked with anyone else.

It is 100% factually correct to say, Justin Baldoni hired an intimacy coordinator, and Blake lively refused to meet with her.

I’m sure Blake supporters are going, but but but you are leaving out context! She didn’t want to meet in preproduction. But it’s 100% factually correct. And that is what the times did, some of the facts were so skewed without context.

What the times also did is list incidents that defy the reasonable standard of sexual harassment. For example, intimacy coordinators have come out and said they are not needed on set when there is no nudity or sexual simulation. For Blake to demand one on set every day is unreasonable and not a standard.

On the bolded. Yes exactly. This is missing context but isn't defamatory. It's skewed but not legally actionable. It's not about being a Blake supporter. I'm sure there are many articles describing what Baldoni said about her campaign to steal his movie, which are not defamation if they reported in a similar way as NYT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a lawyer, but I guess I just don’t understand why someone is saying the New York Times printed facts so can’t be defamatory.

Doesn’t the context matter here? A man is at a workplace and bites into a piece of pizza and says that is HOT! A woman who works with him is standing nearby and gets offended because she believes he is sexually harassing her.

Fact, he did say that, but the contact matters right? I feel like the New York Times and Blake left out a ton of context about many of the things she listed.

This is incredibly reductive, it's impossible to take seriously. Lively was not alleging a single incident of a coworker saying the word hot in her presence. She also has documentation of much of the alleged behavior and was putting her money where her mouth was and actually filing a lawsuit, which is by itself a newsworthy event.

And NYT did offer Wayfarer a chance to or vide context. Twohey sent them emails that list substantially all of the allegations against them. They chose not to provide any context, issued a blanket denial of everything, and accused Lively of lying. And that statement was duly reported as well.

Are you sure you even know what objectivity is?

Calm down. I wasn’t being reductive because I actually wasn’t talking anything to do with the lively case. I was using an example and actually forgotten that there was a part of the case where lively absurdly claimed that he was remarking about the temperature and she just assumed he was talking about her. God she is truly an insufferable moron.

Anyway, I was just using a that as a that as an example of how a statement could be used out of context. You never explained why leaving out critical context isn’t important. And skews the facts to where it’s not factual anymore.

It is absurd to me that anyone would criticize Baldoni‘s team’s response to this. The times had worked with lively for months as we now know. They contacted his team at 9:46 on Friday night of a holiday weekend. Had he even retained Freedman at this point? Blake and her team of lawyers have been working for months. He didn’t have a lawyer for this case yet, it’s my understanding he was basically finding out with the rest of the world?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree that the New York Times presented 100% correct facts. We know that with Justin’s lawsuit, there were several lies in Blake’s complaints that were reported as facts and not checked with anyone else.

It is 100% factually correct to say, Justin Baldoni hired an intimacy coordinator, and Blake lively refused to meet with her.

I’m sure Blake supporters are going, but but but you are leaving out context! She didn’t want to meet in preproduction. But it’s 100% factually correct. And that is what the times did, some of the facts were so skewed without context.

What the times also did is list incidents that defy the reasonable standard of sexual harassment. For example, intimacy coordinators have come out and said they are not needed on set when there is no nudity or sexual simulation. For Blake to demand one on set every day is unreasonable and not a standard.

On the bolded. Yes exactly. This is missing context but isn't defamatory. It's skewed but not legally actionable. It's not about being a Blake supporter. I'm sure there are many articles describing what Baldoni said about her campaign to steal his movie, which are not defamation if they reported in a similar way as NYT.

Exactly. If the NYT piece is defamation then 90% of what has been written and said about this conflict is defamatory.

[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.

It’s refreshing to see an actually informed take.