Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is interesting how perspective differs. A lawyer commentator on TikTok thought Blake's argument came off as very entitled, as she is asking for special protection for communications that otherwise would not be entitled for it solely because of her fame.

On the call, to me, it seemed like she was asking for protection specifically on behalf of third parties. For example, any texts or communications between Lively and Reynolds that didn’t involve security or medical records could not be marked AEO. Not much protection for Lively there. To be honest, I took the AEO request as directed more to protect Lively’s friends than herself (while recognizing that any attempt to protect herself outside of security and medical records probably wouldn’t fly anyway).

So yeah, it’s interesting that TikTok atty has a different opinion, and I’m sure TikTok provides them with a pro-Baldoni audience that is giving them a lot of views lol.

Her communication with her friends, I.e. Blake’s communications.That would not be worthy of protection.

Anyway, it sounds like the judge was leaning towards the Freedman approach which was AEO only for first 48 hours and then can be challenged. The only parties who may have legitimately protectable info are the pr firms, with respect to client identity if not already public.

I understand what you’re saying. I was saying that the (outwardly, at least) purpose of Lively’s non-security or medical records privacy request under the AEO PO request appeared more concerned with protecting the communications of third parties than herself, because it would ONLY cover communications with those third parties and would NOT protect communications Lively made with, e.g. her husband.

I’m not sure they will win on this but they had good arguments and have certainly spent thousands of dollars to try to keep Swift’s text messages out of the public eye, which tbh I hope they succeed at. This case is a crazy animal and I don’t need to read Swift’s texts and I don’t think Baldoni does, either - I hope they stay AEO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is interesting how perspective differs. A lawyer commentator on TikTok thought Blake's argument came off as very entitled, as she is asking for special protection for communications that otherwise would not be entitled for it solely because of her fame.

On the call, to me, it seemed like she was asking for protection specifically on behalf of third parties. For example, any texts or communications between Lively and Reynolds that didn’t involve security or medical records could not be marked AEO. Not much protection for Lively there. To be honest, I took the AEO request as directed more to protect Lively’s friends than herself (while recognizing that any attempt to protect herself outside of security and medical records probably wouldn’t fly anyway).

So yeah, it’s interesting that TikTok atty has a different opinion, and I’m sure TikTok provides them with a pro-Baldoni audience that is giving them a lot of views lol.

Her communication with her friends, I.e. Blake’s communications.That would not be worthy of protection.

Anyway, it sounds like the judge was leaning towards the Freedman approach which was AEO only for first 48 hours and then can be challenged. The only parties who may have legitimately protectable info are the pr firms, with respect to client identity if not already public.

I understand what you’re saying. I was saying that the (outwardly, at least) purpose of Lively’s non-security or medical records privacy request under the AEO PO request appeared more concerned with protecting the communications of third parties than herself, because it would ONLY cover communications with those third parties and would NOT protect communications Lively made with, e.g. her husband.

I’m not sure they will win on this but they had good arguments and have certainly spent thousands of dollars to try to keep Swift’s text messages out of the public eye, which tbh I hope they succeed at. This case is a crazy animal and I don’t need to read Swift’s texts and I don’t think Baldoni does, either - I hope they stay AEO.

There isn’t a legal basis for that— involving your very family friends in embarrassing text conversations isn’t a class of protected documents, particularly when you are the initial plaintiff. Should have thought that through before making Taylor part of her scheme.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ryan and Blake need to accept the L and move on. Write Justin a check and apologize. Trying to strong arm and muscle the public into believing your hoax bullshit will never work. It's over.

You have this exactly backwards but, go on....

I agree Blake will probably win in court - or get this squashed before it makes it there - seems like hiring the Shapiro firm almost guarantees that result.

But I do think Blake and Ryan have taken a huge hit with the public. Time will tell I guess.

I think a win for him would be not being labeled as a sexual harasser for the rest of his life, so he can continue to have a career doing what he wants to do. And hopefully he's done that, because I don't think this is necessarily going to have a "fair" outcome. I think she'll get the win in court because she had the advantage of setting the whole thing up just so.

If that was his goal, I think he screwed up. Because as this proceeds and the focus gets shifted toward what he actually did, I think a few things are going to become apparent:

1) Most people would reasonably have felt uncomfortable or weirded out, of not also harassed by his and Heath's behavior. The online stans notwithstanding, when people hear testimony and evidence of the culture on set, they are going to be like "that sounds miserable." Regardless of whether it's ruled harassment or not. Especially with testimony from others.

2) Additional details about how Baldoni, specifically, approached the campaign against Blake is going to make him look guilty. This has been glossed over online but even just from the handful of texts from Abel's phone we have so far, he sounds incredibly aggressive. "He wants to hear we can bury her." This is NOT going to square with his contention that he did nothing at all wrong. If their behavior was fine, what is the point in "burying" her? They knew they screwed up.

3) All if this will be impossible to square with his public image as a male feminist. No one will ever buy that again, and with good reason. And since he CHOSE to sell himself that way, aggressively, what's left? He's an aging actor who wasn't getting parts anyway. No one is going to want him to direct -- even if he's not a harasser, just weird and tone deaf, he's not talented enough to get away with that.

His career is over. I think if he'd self reflected a bit, genuinely apologized to Blake and the rest of the cast, and not fought her edit or the marketing restrictions, this would have all blown over by now. But I think his ego is too big to admit he screwed up. This is his own doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is interesting how perspective differs. A lawyer commentator on TikTok thought Blake's argument came off as very entitled, as she is asking for special protection for communications that otherwise would not be entitled for it solely because of her fame.

On the call, to me, it seemed like she was asking for protection specifically on behalf of third parties. For example, any texts or communications between Lively and Reynolds that didn’t involve security or medical records could not be marked AEO. Not much protection for Lively there. To be honest, I took the AEO request as directed more to protect Lively’s friends than herself (while recognizing that any attempt to protect herself outside of security and medical records probably wouldn’t fly anyway).

So yeah, it’s interesting that TikTok atty has a different opinion, and I’m sure TikTok provides them with a pro-Baldoni audience that is giving them a lot of views lol.

Her communication with her friends, I.e. Blake’s communications.That would not be worthy of protection.

Anyway, it sounds like the judge was leaning towards the Freedman approach which was AEO only for first 48 hours and then can be challenged. The only parties who may have legitimately protectable info are the pr firms, with respect to client identity if not already public.

I understand what you’re saying. I was saying that the (outwardly, at least) purpose of Lively’s non-security or medical records privacy request under the AEO PO request appeared more concerned with protecting the communications of third parties than herself, because it would ONLY cover communications with those third parties and would NOT protect communications Lively made with, e.g. her husband.

I’m not sure they will win on this but they had good arguments and have certainly spent thousands of dollars to try to keep Swift’s text messages out of the public eye, which tbh I hope they succeed at. This case is a crazy animal and I don’t need to read Swift’s texts and I don’t think Baldoni does, either - I hope they stay AEO.

There isn’t a legal basis for that— involving your very family friends in embarrassing text conversations isn’t a class of protected documents, particularly when you are the initial plaintiff. Should have thought that through before making Taylor part of her scheme.

Liman noted that he wouldn’t be afraid to sanction parties for disobeying the PO, and Lively’s atty responded with the point that several of the parties in this case made money by feeding information to the press, and that the parties had explicitly bragged in text messages that they could provide information to the public in an untraceable way, and that there was a significant risk of that happening in this case unlike in other matters that had come before Liman. They also noted Ps were operating on a $100M budget and mentioned Sarowitz’s “like dead bodies” threats in making the argument that sanctions would not really be an effective deterrent in this case. Along this really set Freedman off, and I recognize “texts to your very famous friends” isn’t normally an AEO protected category. That said, the Seattle Times standard is “damaging to reputation and privacy” and this would certainly be that. Does anyone really think Baldoni’s people wouldn’t be secretly feeding Swift’s texts to media outlets hoping to create some further news/rift to hurt Lively? Freedman’s high offense here was all for show imho.

I hope they win this AEO PO and I’m glad they made good arguments to support it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ryan and Blake need to accept the L and move on. Write Justin a check and apologize. Trying to strong arm and muscle the public into believing your hoax bullshit will never work. It's over.

You have this exactly backwards but, go on....

I agree Blake will probably win in court - or get this squashed before it makes it there - seems like hiring the Shapiro firm almost guarantees that result.

But I do think Blake and Ryan have taken a huge hit with the public. Time will tell I guess.

I think a win for him would be not being labeled as a sexual harasser for the rest of his life, so he can continue to have a career doing what he wants to do. And hopefully he's done that, because I don't think this is necessarily going to have a "fair" outcome. I think she'll get the win in court because she had the advantage of setting the whole thing up just so.

If that was his goal, I think he screwed up. Because as this proceeds and the focus gets shifted toward what he actually did, I think a few things are going to become apparent:

1) Most people would reasonably have felt uncomfortable or weirded out, of not also harassed by his and Heath's behavior. The online stans notwithstanding, when people hear testimony and evidence of the culture on set, they are going to be like "that sounds miserable." Regardless of whether it's ruled harassment or not. Especially with testimony from others.

2) Additional details about how Baldoni, specifically, approached the campaign against Blake is going to make him look guilty. This has been glossed over online but even just from the handful of texts from Abel's phone we have so far, he sounds incredibly aggressive. "He wants to hear we can bury her." This is NOT going to square with his contention that he did nothing at all wrong. If their behavior was fine, what is the point in "burying" her? They knew they screwed up.

3) All if this will be impossible to square with his public image as a male feminist. No one will ever buy that again, and with good reason. And since he CHOSE to sell himself that way, aggressively, what's left? He's an aging actor who wasn't getting parts anyway. No one is going to want him to direct -- even if he's not a harasser, just weird and tone deaf, he's not talented enough to get away with that.

His career is over. I think if he'd self reflected a bit, genuinely apologized to Blake and the rest of the cast, and not fought her edit or the marketing restrictions, this would have all blown over by now. But I think his ego is too big to admit he screwed up. This is his own doing.

Yes, because if there is one thing America will not stand for, it is treating women, especially women in Hollywood, inappropriately or as sexual objects, or really disrespecting them at all or even making them feel a little bit uncomfortable. We just simply won’t tolerate it.

Sorry, obviously being sarcastic because look who we have as president of the United States, but I will push back a little. Baldoni has a lot of public support and he has actually gained a few hundred thousand followers while Blake has lost about 1 million. Obviously not a big hit considering she had about 45.5 to begin with, but still.

I agree he may not get a lot more acting parts, but I would not count him out as a director or a producer or a future podcaster.

I also frankly think Blake and Ryan will be fine, at least financially. I do think this has soured their laid-back, look at how self-deprecating we are humor. I think the SNL 50th reception plus the overall silence of their peers showed that.

But yeah, they will still get work and Ryan is probably mostly transitioning to more behind the scenes and more dealing with his businesses anyway.

I don’t buy that women expire when they reach 35, but I do think Blake is not that strong of an actress and I do have trouble seeing her getting a lot of roles in her 40s. I don’t know if her dream of producing and directing will come to fruition or even if that’s what she really wants. I think she just likes to do red carpets and do interviews, but I’m still not convinced she actually wants to do the work.

I’m most curious about any Taylor Easter eggs in future songs.

[Anonymous]

Where are all of these Baldoni fans I keep hearing about? Are the fans in the room? No? Well, what about this totally believable fandom for famed producer Jamie Heath? Are they here too? Cool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where are all of these Baldoni fans I keep hearing about? Are the fans in the room? No? Well, what about this totally believable fandom for famed producer Jamie Heath? Are they here too? Cool.

What?

Honestly, I don’t understand what you are asking. Yeah there are a ton of influencers on social media who are Baldoni fans with hashtags like teamJustin, plantation princess, you name it.

And yes, this thread in particular has had a lot of Baldoni supporters. I’m genuinely confused about what point you are making.

[Anonymous]

I still support him over this lying and/or overly fragile spoiled princess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are all of these Baldoni fans I keep hearing about? Are the fans in the room? No? Well, what about this totally believable fandom for famed producer Jamie Heath? Are they here too? Cool.

What?

Honestly, I don’t understand what you are asking. Yeah there are a ton of influencers on social media who are Baldoni fans with hashtags like teamJustin, plantation princess, you name it.

And yes, this thread in particular has had a lot of Baldoni supporters. I’m genuinely confused about what point you are making.

Yes, I love your organic confusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So today they planted an obvious puff piece in LA Times but I thought the Blake stans said they didn't plant the hit piece in NY Times? Media is all fake and all for sale.

Most people here (if i understand Blake Stan to be anyone who isn't 100% against her, all the time) thought she brought her story to NYT all along. It's the other side who claims, despite significant evidence, that Baldoni never ran a smear campaign against her because all hate is organic, even when there are pretty much texts bragging about doing it, which we are supposed to buy were all sarcastic.

You don’t see how preparing for something or a hypothetical ‘war games’ scenario (and yes, even sarcasm via text) are not the same as actual ACTION and deployment? Why would they need to deploy anything if basically everyone finds Blake repulsive organically? She’s been a mean girl tyrant bully for 20 years. She can’t help herself apparently.

The poster can’t concede this point. She’s busy rounding up the Baldoni fans! We’re all just fans of this guy and his producer BFF, okay? What?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still support him over this lying and/or overly fragile spoiled princess.

Agree. I think it was a weird set as all sets are and I really don’t think he did anything nearly as egregious as 99% of what typically goes down and I think she knows this.

She did a piss poor job of setting any kind of boundaries and she egged him on because this was planned all along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where are all of these Baldoni fans I keep hearing about? Are the fans in the room? No? Well, what about this totally believable fandom for famed producer Jamie Heath? Are they here too? Cool.

I don’t even know who this man is and I certainly never saw this dumb movie. I’ve distilled the facts and concluded Blake and Ryan cooked up this entire hoax. It’s incredibly obvious to anyone with two brain cells this was all a scheme whipped up by these two scammers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still support him over this lying and/or overly fragile spoiled princess.

Agree. I think it was a weird set as all sets are and I really don’t think he did anything nearly as egregious as 99% of what typically goes down and I think she knows this.

She did a piss poor job of setting any kind of boundaries and she egged him on because this was planned all along.

Seems like if it’s as clear cut as you certainly seem to believe, then he’d be moving to dismiss on at least some of these supposedly shady claims. But Freedman has already indicated they will not. So you can have your mind made up, but that’s your choice and problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still support him over this lying and/or overly fragile spoiled princess.

Agree. I think it was a weird set as all sets are and I really don’t think he did anything nearly as egregious as 99% of what typically goes down and I think she knows this.

She did a piss poor job of setting any kind of boundaries and she egged him on because this was planned all along.

Seems like if it’s as clear cut as you certainly seem to believe, then he’d be moving to dismiss on at least some of these supposedly shady claims. But Freedman has already indicated they will not. So you can have your mind made up, but that’s your choice and problem.

It's more nuanced than that. On a motion to dismiss you assume all facts are true, so it's not crazy for him to not file a motion. If you add up all the stuff she claims happened that can legally add up to sexual harassment (I know there's one or two posters here who don't agree). Baldonj has to disprove or contextualize each event. He can still win at trial. I found Lively's complaint strong but to the extent he has provided explanations and proof, I found them compelling. But those are issues of fact, which go to trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still support him over this lying and/or overly fragile spoiled princess.

Agree. I think it was a weird set as all sets are and I really don’t think he did anything nearly as egregious as 99% of what typically goes down and I think she knows this.

She did a piss poor job of setting any kind of boundaries and she egged him on because this was planned all along.

Seems like if it’s as clear cut as you certainly seem to believe, then he’d be moving to dismiss on at least some of these supposedly shady claims. But Freedman has already indicated they will not. So you can have your mind made up, but that’s your choice and problem.

It's more nuanced than that. On a motion to dismiss you assume all facts are true, so it's not crazy for him to not file a motion. If you add up all the stuff she claims happened that can legally add up to sexual harassment (I know there's one or two posters here who don't agree). Baldonj has to disprove or contextualize each event. He can still win at trial. I found Lively's complaint strong but to the extent he has provided explanations and proof, I found them compelling. But those are issues of fact, which go to trial.

Or summary judgment.