Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

I don't really have an opinion yet about the case but what I do know from everything I have read and seen is that I really don't like either Blake or Justin as people. Both are obnoxious.

[Anonymous]

In court, will the NYTimes have to reveal when they started working on the article? What other specific things can we expect to come to light?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really have an opinion yet about the case but what I do know from everything I have read and seen is that I really don't like either Blake or Justin as people. Both are obnoxious.

How is he obnoxious?

This story is exactly like Bad Art Friend. Smug mugs who came to it in December decided he’s guilty of stuff he quite evidently never ever did. His Dawn-like sincerity is a flaw against Lively’s polished like Sonya’s gross turd character. At least it explains to me why he can’t settle, and to be grateful from afar that his film partners have the money to push this hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The NYTimes responded to Justin's amended lawsuit: https://www.justjared.com/2025/02/01/the-new-york-times-fires-back-at-justin-baldoni-bogus-claim-they-had-early-access-to-blake-livelys-complaint/

The NYT statement is worded to precisely to say they did not post the complaint before it was filed. It's baggie on when they saw it and started within with her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In court, will the NYTimes have to reveal when they started working on the article? What other specific things can we expect to come to light?

If justin’s case survives a MTD, yes, they will. I suspect that the NYT might file an anti SLAPP motion, but I’m not sure. My guess is justin’s case will survive those early motions and discovery will begin. And yes, the NYT will have to show timing and the internal process that led to the story being published, what they did to corroborate her story, what they did and didn’t do and said about seeking the other side’s perspective, etc.

I’m fairly alone on this thread on thinking that Justin has a real case against the NYT. This was an explosive story. I don’t think it will be hard to show they had a real confirmation bias going in to this story, their MeToo journalist wanted to fit this into another metoo framework with a PR twist, and they ignored proper journalism standards… and there was significant harm to people, including people who are arguably private figures.

But it’s also been a very wise PR move as well, and I’m sure it’s unsettled the Times and that reporter.

[Anonymous]

Everything freedman has done is brilliant. I just read an article about the intimacy coordinator notes that baldoni’s team published. So apparently Blake refused to meet with the coordinator and then considered it sexual harassment when he relayed the notes to her. It sounded unbelievable to me but then I remembered that this is a woman who referred to herself as a khaleesi with “gorgeous dragons of mine”—basically a dumb person so it’s not crazy to believe she would pull the coordinator stunt and think she could get away with it.

[Anonymous]

Blake and Ryan also tried to ruin Jamey Heath per the docs. Let’s not forget him.

Also did anyone read the prepared apology that Blake and Ryan tried to force Baldoni and Heath to sign? I am so glad that they refused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake and Ryan also tried to ruin Jamey Heath per the docs. Let’s not forget him.

Also did anyone read the prepared apology that Blake and Ryan tried to force Baldoni and Heath to sign? I am so glad that they refused.

The reference to "man enough" is dripping with Ryan's nasty, smarmy tone.

"We mutually agreed that the cast would be promoting the film separately and understood why. We have always said we are not perfect and even if unintentionally make mistakes, we will always own them. We hold ourselves accountable, it's not anyone's job but ours and that's part of being 'man enough.'"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was following this drama since this summer - just how weird it was that the entire case was so public in their shunning of Baldoni. Now, even if you take Lively’s complaint as 100% correct, it still doesn’t make any sense what they all did. Maybe if you had an abusive director who was screaming at them, throwing things, etc. But there is nothing like that. Are we really to believe that Baldoni, Heath, the billionaire guy all just walked around the set ogling all the ladies and making it a terrible and tense work environment? Why did the guy who played Atlas tag the article and say - for gods sake read this - or whatever? I’m super confused by the cast and frankly this looks bad for them too. Seeing the clear creative takeover of the movie and them lining up solidly behind her - who wants to hire Jenny Slate or the other cast members if you can’t trust them either?

I agree 💯 and that's never made sense to me.

If you know about personality disorders it makes perfect sense. As does the theory that BL was scheming for the rights to the 2nd book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really have an opinion yet about the case but what I do know from everything I have read and seen is that I really don't like either Blake or Justin as people. Both are obnoxious.

How is he obnoxious?

This story is exactly like Bad Art Friend. Smug mugs who came to it in December decided he’s guilty of stuff he quite evidently never ever did. His Dawn-like sincerity is a flaw against Lively’s polished like Sonya’s gross turd character. At least it explains to me why he can’t settle, and to be grateful from afar that his film partners have the money to push this hard.

I find him very fake, insincere, and smarmy in the documents. And then I saw his proposal video (that was all about him) and I decided smarmy, fake, and obnoxious.

There is nothing sincere or genuine about him. He says whatever he thinks people want to hear and is so over the top most of the time.

If you haven't seen the video where he proposes to his now wife, enjoy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVTr5MNa_8Y&t=377s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So RR called JB’s agent and told him JB was a sexual predator and then he was dropped by his agency. It really seems to be that JB suffered the damages here. Nothing he did was even remotely the behavior of a sexual predator.

But isn’t RR legally allowed to do that (free speech and all that)?

I'm no lawyer, but I don't think you can make false accusations that cause someone to get fired, no.

I think you can if it's a matter of opinion and you genuinely believe it.

Baldoni could argue that his agent should have done some due diligence on the claim before dropping him. I would guess it would depend on what his contract with the agency says.

Also, while industry parlance is that the agent "fired" Baldoni as a client, technically Baldoni is the boss and the agency is the employee. So it's more like they quit. Which you are allowed to do.

Baldoni still might have a defamation claim here, as well as a tortious interference claim, but I think they'll have to prove Reynold's didn't believe the claims, and that might be hard.

People on here are really not under legal issues.

It will be easy to prove Reynolds’s didn’t believe or had no reason to believe JB was a sexual predator if there are no facts supporting that he was one. Which there doesn’t seem to be.

Defamation law doesn’t protect for people saying ‘my opinion is that Bob is a serial killer’ unless there are some solid facts pointing to that being a *reasonable* conclusion. And typically the greater the negativity of the statement, the more the facts have to be sound and verifiable.

Lots of us aren’t lawyers but are trying to understand. So, what if she comes home and tells RR that JB did all these things (called her sexy, said “it’s so hot” as he dragged his lips on her, talked about having nonconsensual sex) and RR then thinks he’s a predator and tells people? If BL mischaracterized events, is she then responsible for RR’s actions?

Well that’s where the concept of negligence could come it. At a certain point, using rumors to interfere in someone’s business relationship or employment can become reckless or negligent. You’d have to look at the case law to really assess the facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really have an opinion yet about the case but what I do know from everything I have read and seen is that I really don't like either Blake or Justin as people. Both are obnoxious.

How is he obnoxious?

This story is exactly like Bad Art Friend. Smug mugs who came to it in December decided he’s guilty of stuff he quite evidently never ever did. His Dawn-like sincerity is a flaw against Lively’s polished like Sonya’s gross turd character. At least it explains to me why he can’t settle, and to be grateful from afar that his film partners have the money to push this hard.

Oh that’s a great comparison. Someone needs to write a book on this. Internet-mediated belief systems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In court, will the NYTimes have to reveal when they started working on the article? What other specific things can we expect to come to light?

If justin’s case survives a MTD, yes, they will. I suspect that the NYT might file an anti SLAPP motion, but I’m not sure. My guess is justin’s case will survive those early motions and discovery will begin. And yes, the NYT will have to show timing and the internal process that led to the story being published, what they did to corroborate her story, what they did and didn’t do and said about seeking the other side’s perspective, etc.

I’m fairly alone on this thread on thinking that Justin has a real case against the NYT. This was an explosive story. I don’t think it will be hard to show they had a real confirmation bias going in to this story, their MeToo journalist wanted to fit this into another metoo framework with a PR twist, and they ignored proper journalism standards… and there was significant harm to people, including people who are arguably private figures.

But it’s also been a very wise PR move as well, and I’m sure it’s unsettled the Times and that reporter.

I don’t disagree that this will beat a MTD unless the judge has a very restrictive take on the showing needed for actual malice. but “confirmation bias” isn’t a grounds to show actual bias, and it’s not clear that “proper journalism standards” even exist such to show that they were recklessly or intentionally violated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In court, will the NYTimes have to reveal when they started working on the article? What other specific things can we expect to come to light?

If justin’s case survives a MTD, yes, they will. I suspect that the NYT might file an anti SLAPP motion, but I’m not sure. My guess is justin’s case will survive those early motions and discovery will begin. And yes, the NYT will have to show timing and the internal process that led to the story being published, what they did to corroborate her story, what they did and didn’t do and said about seeking the other side’s perspective, etc.

I’m fairly alone on this thread on thinking that Justin has a real case against the NYT. This was an explosive story. I don’t think it will be hard to show they had a real confirmation bias going in to this story, their MeToo journalist wanted to fit this into another metoo framework with a PR twist, and they ignored proper journalism standards… and there was significant harm to people, including people who are arguably private figures.

But it’s also been a very wise PR move as well, and I’m sure it’s unsettled the Times and that reporter.

I believe Blake and Ryan are delusional, but I doubt Megan Twohey is, so I would love to know what she's thinking after reading Justin's lawsuit and his rebuttals to Blake's claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In court, will the NYTimes have to reveal when they started working on the article? What other specific things can we expect to come to light?

If justin’s case survives a MTD, yes, they will. I suspect that the NYT might file an anti SLAPP motion, but I’m not sure. My guess is justin’s case will survive those early motions and discovery will begin. And yes, the NYT will have to show timing and the internal process that led to the story being published, what they did to corroborate her story, what they did and didn’t do and said about seeking the other side’s perspective, etc.

I’m fairly alone on this thread on thinking that Justin has a real case against the NYT. This was an explosive story. I don’t think it will be hard to show they had a real confirmation bias going in to this story, their MeToo journalist wanted to fit this into another metoo framework with a PR twist, and they ignored proper journalism standards… and there was significant harm to people, including people who are arguably private figures.

But it’s also been a very wise PR move as well, and I’m sure it’s unsettled the Times and that reporter.

I find the NYT piece of this whole story the most interesting part. I hope you’re right that it survives a mtd because I want to keep watching this!