Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been defending Lively. If what’s in Wallace’s declaration is true — that Wallace only monitored and did nothing to influence content — that would be a big blow for her case. Maybe he will even win on the personal jurisdiction argument, and get the case severed to TX.

Curious to me that he says he was working on this from August to November and then suddenly decided to go to NYC in December for two weeks with his family but conducted no business at all there the entire time. Who runs a business single-handedly and then has the ability to turn everything off for two whole weeks and send out zero business related texts, emails, or calls? That seems dodgy to me, and that alone could probably give him minimum NY contacts for jurisdiction for this suit. And, if he’s lying in his declaration about that, what else might he be lying about?

The 9th to the 16th is one week, not two, and he went with family. It's really not weird to go on a family vacation.

That’s true, that’s really just 8 days not 14. Sorry. But he runs a business by himself and didn’t send out one business related email or other communication that whole time, or work on his laptop from his hotel at night? Really?

Also, what about the Nathan text from October 8, 2024 that “We’re starting to see a shift on social, due largely to Jed and his team’s efforts to shift the narrative toward shining a spotlight on Blake and Ryan.” Nathan sure thought Wallace was actively shifting the narrative by October and not just monitoring, so that’s inconsistent.

I would also love to know how and why (as someone here previously reposted from Reddit itself) that posts on Reddit that merely mention Jed Wallace or Bryan Freedman in the past have gotten downvoted very quickly, within hours, so that’s inconsistent they don’t get views or attention. Who is arranging that?

This is my question. I am on reddit and I've seen the downvoting happen in real time. It's especially weird because what would happen is that someone would post something critical of Freedman or Wallace in the comments, and that comment would be immediately downvoted to well below 0, but no one would argue with the comment. That's really unusual. Normally if a post is downvoted like that, you'll have people responding and saying "no that's wrong" or otherwise taking issue. And it would happen in comment sections where the other upvoting/downvoting behavior seemed normal.

A lot of people on Reddit have assumed there is a bot that automatically downvotes comments that include their names along with certain keywords. It was a big thing on Reddit in January and was happening in multiple subs, which is why so many people noticed.

[Anonymous]

Lively’s Motion to Dismiss has dropped. To me (though others will disagree), solid work on some of her toughest argument re defamation, noting that Baldoni’s own PR reps admit that she believes she is right and trying to right a wrong (showing no actual malice here - she believed the allegations were true). Argues the state statue allows her treble damages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lively’s Motion to Dismiss has dropped. To me (though others will disagree), solid work on some of her toughest argument re defamation, noting that Baldoni’s own PR reps admit that she believes she is right and trying to right a wrong (showing no actual malice here - she believed the allegations were true). Argues the state statue allows her treble damages.

What is the California state law that is referred to in her motion that she says makes it illegal for Baldoni to sue her? Is there a Calif law that says suing back would be unlawful retaliation from an employer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lively’s Motion to Dismiss has dropped. To me (though others will disagree), solid work on some of her toughest argument re defamation, noting that Baldoni’s own PR reps admit that she believes she is right and trying to right a wrong (showing no actual malice here - she believed the allegations were true). Argues the state statue allows her treble damages.

Haven’t read it yet—will later—but my overall opinion is that, though they might try, BL and RR are not getting out of this lawsuit. Perhaps some of the others will have success, but I don’t think these three have a chance. There’s enough for the cases against them to proceed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively’s Motion to Dismiss has dropped. To me (though others will disagree), solid work on some of her toughest argument re defamation, noting that Baldoni’s own PR reps admit that she believes she is right and trying to right a wrong (showing no actual malice here - she believed the allegations were true). Argues the state statue allows her treble damages.

What is the California state law that is referred to in her motion that she says makes it illegal for Baldoni to sue her? Is there a Calif law that says suing back would be unlawful retaliation from an employer?

Google from LA Times: “ AB 933, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October 2023, was enacted to protect individuals from defamation lawsuits based on statements about sexual assault, harassment or discrimination provided they were made without malice — meaning the speaker did not knowingly make a false statement or act with reckless disregard for the truth.”

Good lawyers for Lively who also claiming statute of limitations against JB. Wonder what law schools using this to discuss procedure- would make interesting class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lively’s Motion to Dismiss has dropped. To me (though others will disagree), solid work on some of her toughest argument re defamation, noting that Baldoni’s own PR reps admit that she believes she is right and trying to right a wrong (showing no actual malice here - she believed the allegations were true). Argues the state statue allows her treble damages.

Link for those that want to read in full: https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/lively-memo-mach-20.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively’s Motion to Dismiss has dropped. To me (though others will disagree), solid work on some of her toughest argument re defamation, noting that Baldoni’s own PR reps admit that she believes she is right and trying to right a wrong (showing no actual malice here - she believed the allegations were true). Argues the state statue allows her treble damages.

What is the California state law that is referred to in her motion that she says makes it illegal for Baldoni to sue her? Is there a Calif law that says suing back would be unlawful retaliation from an employer?

Google from LA Times: “ AB 933, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October 2023, was enacted to protect individuals from defamation lawsuits based on statements about sexual assault, harassment or discrimination provided they were made without malice — meaning the speaker did not knowingly make a false statement or act with reckless disregard for the truth.”

Good lawyers for Lively who also claiming statute of limitations against JB. Wonder what law schools using this to discuss procedure- would make interesting class.

Did not know that. Interesting. Have to look back at Baldoni's amended complaint but I think he has some factual basis to argue she is showing reckless disregard for the truth (thinking of the dancing scene) but it's hard me to remember what was in his complaint vs amended complaint vs timeline vs the video and other media narratives. This might end up being an issue of fact and not be dismissed. It also is unclear whether this law would cover allegedly defamatory statements about the smear campaign, since it's not SH but Lively claims it as broader retaliation.

[Anonymous]

Somebody mentioned the Ask Two Lawyers podcast previously. I went back to listen to their podcast on the protective order and I cannot believe that they both concluded that Baldoni “mostly won” that issue since he “got almost everything they wanted” and that the Lively side must “feel like it didn’t win.” And that “Baldoni won more than he lost.” That’s bananas when you look at the protective orders both sides submitted and argued for. Baldoni wanted a meet and confer before anything could be submitted as AEO, and the judge did mot agree.

I don’t think they read the underlying papers, and don’t think they read the order carefully. Or, they just want clicks and have decided to make their opinion pro Baldoni no matter the actual substance.

I’m not familiar with their podcast but their comments on the PO are just so distanced from how an objective person would read the protective order outcome that it makes me question their substance generally. Their legal judgements may be okay but the way they are shading it, at least re the PO, is so far off that it’s actually misleading.

[Anonymous]

Blake and Ryan’s careers are over. They are detestable pathological lying schemers. Everyone sees their true colors.

[Anonymous]

Not a lawyer but I think BL using AB 933 will fail because of the “without malice” clause (and no the musings of Jen Abel are not enough to give her cover). I think you could argue BL’s 17 pt complaint was protected under AB 933 but 1. JB did not sue her after that, he conceded to her demands, moved on and there were no further incidents; 2. Malice is all over everything else that happened after her 17 pt complaint (turning the cast against him, icing him out from the premiere, the salacious nyt article with misrepresented facts). BL can’t argue the nyt article was without actual malice b/c 1. She had already raised her SH concerns months and months prior (AB 933 is there so victims feel comfortable speaking out, but she already had); 2. She threatened the gloves would come off if he didn’t release her statement and then the gloves came off. Malice plain and simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a lawyer but I think BL using AB 933 will fail because of the “without malice” clause (and no the musings of Jen Abel are not enough to give her cover). I think you could argue BL’s 17 pt complaint was protected under AB 933 but 1. JB did not sue her after that, he conceded to her demands, moved on and there were no further incidents; 2. Malice is all over everything else that happened after her 17 pt complaint (turning the cast against him, icing him out from the premiere, the salacious nyt article with misrepresented facts). BL can’t argue the nyt article was without actual malice b/c 1. She had already raised her SH concerns months and months prior (AB 933 is there so victims feel comfortable speaking out, but she already had); 2. She threatened the gloves would come off if he didn’t release her statement and then the gloves came off. Malice plain and simple.

Yep, that email from her team saying any goodwill is gone and the other email saying gloves will come off is going to make it hard to show that there wasn’t malice.

But further, she definitely leveraged her complaints to get more power in the movie. She used that list of complaints starting January 4 to get pretty much every demand met and it is well documented. I think it will be very hard to get out of this entirely.

I’ll let the lawyers debate that. It kind of almost doesn’t matter at this point. She’s dragged Taylor into this and embarrassing texts been leaked. She will be Kalisi forever and no more girls night pap sightings with Taylor Swift.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a lawyer but I think BL using AB 933 will fail because of the “without malice” clause (and no the musings of Jen Abel are not enough to give her cover). I think you could argue BL’s 17 pt complaint was protected under AB 933 but 1. JB did not sue her after that, he conceded to her demands, moved on and there were no further incidents; 2. Malice is all over everything else that happened after her 17 pt complaint (turning the cast against him, icing him out from the premiere, the salacious nyt article with misrepresented facts). BL can’t argue the nyt article was without actual malice b/c 1. She had already raised her SH concerns months and months prior (AB 933 is there so victims feel comfortable speaking out, but she already had); 2. She threatened the gloves would come off if he didn’t release her statement and then the gloves came off. Malice plain and simple.

You are twisting what "without malice" means here.

It doesn't mean that an accuser makes the allegation while maintaining love and respect for the person they are accusing. They are allowed to dislike the person they are accusing, and in fact it makes sense that they would dislike this person if their allegations are true. Malice doesn't just mean "dislike" or "wishes ill."

Malice means lying or acting with "reckless disregard" for the truth. You can really dislike someone and want them to be punished, and still not act with malice, as long as you are truthful and say only things you can reasonably believe to be true. So evidence that BL unfollowed him on social media, or took over editing, or turned the rest of the cast against him is not evidence of malice. As long as she believe her accusations to be true, and had some reasonable basis for that, she acted without malice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a lawyer but I think BL using AB 933 will fail because of the “without malice” clause (and no the musings of Jen Abel are not enough to give her cover). I think you could argue BL’s 17 pt complaint was protected under AB 933 but 1. JB did not sue her after that, he conceded to her demands, moved on and there were no further incidents; 2. Malice is all over everything else that happened after her 17 pt complaint (turning the cast against him, icing him out from the premiere, the salacious nyt article with misrepresented facts). BL can’t argue the nyt article was without actual malice b/c 1. She had already raised her SH concerns months and months prior (AB 933 is there so victims feel comfortable speaking out, but she already had); 2. She threatened the gloves would come off if he didn’t release her statement and then the gloves came off. Malice plain and simple.

You are twisting what "without malice" means here.

It doesn't mean that an accuser makes the allegation while maintaining love and respect for the person they are accusing. They are allowed to dislike the person they are accusing, and in fact it makes sense that they would dislike this person if their allegations are true. Malice doesn't just mean "dislike" or "wishes ill."

Malice means lying or acting with "reckless disregard" for the truth. You can really dislike someone and want them to be punished, and still not act with malice, as long as you are truthful and say only things you can reasonably believe to be true. So evidence that BL unfollowed him on social media, or took over editing, or turned the rest of the cast against him is not evidence of malice. As long as she believe her accusations to be true, and had some reasonable basis for that, she acted without malice.

Yup. Also a lawyer and I was going to make the same point re the specific meaning of malice in this context. I'm not saying the presence/absence of malice won't be an issue of fact, but it won't be the investigation the non-lawyer Baldoni supporters are suggesting it should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a lawyer but I think BL using AB 933 will fail because of the “without malice” clause (and no the musings of Jen Abel are not enough to give her cover). I think you could argue BL’s 17 pt complaint was protected under AB 933 but 1. JB did not sue her after that, he conceded to her demands, moved on and there were no further incidents; 2. Malice is all over everything else that happened after her 17 pt complaint (turning the cast against him, icing him out from the premiere, the salacious nyt article with misrepresented facts). BL can’t argue the nyt article was without actual malice b/c 1. She had already raised her SH concerns months and months prior (AB 933 is there so victims feel comfortable speaking out, but she already had); 2. She threatened the gloves would come off if he didn’t release her statement and then the gloves came off. Malice plain and simple.

You are twisting what "without malice" means here.

It doesn't mean that an accuser makes the allegation while maintaining love and respect for the person they are accusing. They are allowed to dislike the person they are accusing, and in fact it makes sense that they would dislike this person if their allegations are true. Malice doesn't just mean "dislike" or "wishes ill."

Malice means lying or acting with "reckless disregard" for the truth. You can really dislike someone and want them to be punished, and still not act with malice, as long as you are truthful and say only things you can reasonably believe to be true. So evidence that BL unfollowed him on social media, or took over editing, or turned the rest of the cast against him is not evidence of malice. As long as she believe her accusations to be true, and had some reasonable basis for that, she acted without malice.

You’re using the definition of malice as it’s applied in defamation. WRT to AB 933, you have to use the definition of malice as applied in sexual harassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a lawyer but I think BL using AB 933 will fail because of the “without malice” clause (and no the musings of Jen Abel are not enough to give her cover). I think you could argue BL’s 17 pt complaint was protected under AB 933 but 1. JB did not sue her after that, he conceded to her demands, moved on and there were no further incidents; 2. Malice is all over everything else that happened after her 17 pt complaint (turning the cast against him, icing him out from the premiere, the salacious nyt article with misrepresented facts). BL can’t argue the nyt article was without actual malice b/c 1. She had already raised her SH concerns months and months prior (AB 933 is there so victims feel comfortable speaking out, but she already had); 2. She threatened the gloves would come off if he didn’t release her statement and then the gloves came off. Malice plain and simple.

You are twisting what "without malice" means here.

It doesn't mean that an accuser makes the allegation while maintaining love and respect for the person they are accusing. They are allowed to dislike the person they are accusing, and in fact it makes sense that they would dislike this person if their allegations are true. Malice doesn't just mean "dislike" or "wishes ill."

Malice means lying or acting with "reckless disregard" for the truth. You can really dislike someone and want them to be punished, and still not act with malice, as long as you are truthful and say only things you can reasonably believe to be true. So evidence that BL unfollowed him on social media, or took over editing, or turned the rest of the cast against him is not evidence of malice. As long as she believe her accusations to be true, and had some reasonable basis for that, she acted without malice.

You’re using the definition of malice as it’s applied in defamation. WRT to AB 933, you have to use the definition of malice as applied in sexual harassment.

DP, but what do you see as the difference? The poster above who quoted AB 933 said: “ AB 933, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October 2023, was enacted to protect individuals from defamation lawsuits based on statements about sexual assault, harassment or discrimination provided they were made without malice — meaning the speaker did not knowingly make a false statement or act with reckless disregard for the truth.”

That sounds more like the definition of actual malice used in defamation than the dictionary definition of malice cited by the poster discussing "gloves off."