Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the legal perspective (I understand that people are discussing a broader context), for purposes of defamation a "publication" of a statement can mean saying it to only one person, so it doesn't matter in that sense whether it was public or private, especially since the claim is that Reynolds said this to WME and directly caused damages by getting Baldoni dropped. OTOH, Reynolds' attorneys had some case law that specifically states calling someone a sexual predator isn't defamatory (which surprised me and I'm interested to see the response there from Freedman) and some pretty good arguments on lack of actual malice. But I get that people are talking more PR, which is fine.

Dp. I’m not up on the details. Who are RR lawyers? Is it Boies?

I find that claim that sexual predator is not defamatory hard to believe. I assume the case was a very specific and unique set of facts

Gottlieb

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only people comparing Justin to Harvey Weinstein appear to be Justin supporters. Harvey Weinstein is a rapist. He assaulted many women over a lot of years, and threatened to assault or ruin others.

But now, every time any man gets accused of any wrongdoing, defenders say "Look, he's not Harvey Weinstein, this is so much more minor." As thought that's the bar. Louis CK exposed himself and pleasured himself in front of young female comics on his tours, and when this came out, a bunch of people said, "oh is that all? Well at least he's not Harvey Weinstein."

I think Baldoni and Heath created a hostile work environment on the set of IEWU, and I think they smeared Lively in the press to discredit her so no one would find out about their weird, inappropriate behavior on the set. I don't think they are rapists and I don't think they've ever assaulted anyone. I don't think they belong in jail. I do think they should be held accountable for the on set behavior and the PR retaliation. It has nothing to do with Weinstein, IMO.

Nobody is leading with, “he’s not Harvey Weinstein.” That comes after people make the comparison, and people are forced to say, nope, not even a little bit.

Please point to anyone, on this thread or elsewhere, claiming that Baldoni is like Harvey Weinstein. I haven't seen it. I have seen many JB-supporters bring it up as a straw man, as in "Blake's acting like Justin is like Harvey Weinstein, and that's not fair." But I've never seen Blake, her lawyers, or anyone who supports her make the comparison.

Weinstein, Epstein, Cosby, these are the people who come to mind when you label someone a predator. You don’t think of someone who asked about someone’s weight. RR has repeatedly called JB a predator. They have used minor infractions to take control of his movie and get him fired. Predator is a very strong word, as Ryan’s own lawyer has argued in representing his other client Drake, who claims he was defamed by Kendrick Lamar. The word predator carries a lot of weight and is extremely damaging. It does not fit Justin Baldoni.

I truly have no problem differentiating between someone who has done what Baldoni is accused of, and Weinstein, Cosby, Epstein.

At no point in this process have I thought, wow Baldoni is the next rapist/child rapist/serial rapist. I have always viewed it as a workplace SH situation, which is a totally different category, and to me much more about fairness than exploitation.

The only person who labeled him a "predator" was, allegedly, Reynolds. I agree it's unhelpful hyperbole. But I also think people tend towards hyperbole when they are very upset and feeling protective of a family member. Reynold's use if the word dies not appear to have been taken seriously (perhaps specifically because it was obviously hyperbole) -- Baldoni didn't lose his agent or agency after Reynolds called him that. In fact, that language probably made people take the accusations of ess seriously because nothing Baldoni was accused if was predatory, except maaaaaybe in the sense that his "male feminist" schtick is misleading.

But that doesn't mean he's not guilty if SH and retaliation. If other people have trouble differentiating between SH and the serious crimes of SA, child exploitation, drugging/kidnapping women, then I suggest those people spend some time reading up on these issues and getting it straight in their head.

But, to analogize, you can engage in workplace racial discrimination without belonging to the Klan or ever committing an act of violence against a POC. Well, you can also SH without being a predator.

Agree they are different but that’s what Reynolds has called him, both privately and publicly. BL has repeatedly called herself a victim and invoked me too laws, which again Weinstein was really the face of that. They’ve implied these comparisons. Not everyone is going to bother to read the details, especially in 20 years when no one even remembers the details. They’ll just remember he was a “predator” accused of me too. BF will challenge all of that in court of course. He’ll point out how frivolous the SH claims were and that some were outright lies. He’ll point out how defamatory the accusations have been. But truly a lot of damage has been done and can never be undone even if JB prevails. BL now says she wishes people would just wait for all the facts to come out, but she didn’t feel that way in December when she was pushing her narrative in the NYT and everyone was coming to her defense. She only feels that way now b/c JB is fighting back.

Reynolds didn't call Baldoni a predator publicly. He allegedly used the term in two private conversations. And that may be actionable for Baldoni! I don't criticize Baldoni for arguing that was defamatory. But Reynolds didn't come out and call Baldoni a predator in the press or in large groups of people. Whereas Baldoni's legal team has repeatedly called Lively a liar in the press.

And I disagree that people get written off forever for this stuff or that people are too dumb to tell the difference between what Baldoni is accused of and what Epstein did. Aziz Ansari was accused of a fairly mild incident of maybe applying more pressure in a sexual date situation than was appropriate, and no one thinks he's akin to Weinstein. He's working and has toured and people seem to generally think he is an okay dude who either did nothing wrong or just made a minor mistake. The aforementioned Louis CK continues to tour and has a lot of internal industry support -- I personally won't watch his stuff anymore because I think what he did *was* predatory and he hasn't shown any real remorse or even understanding of why what he did was wrong. But others have forgiven him or never really cared. James Franco has multiple credible allegations against him and he still works and a lot of people don't even care. And so on. The worse and more credibly the allegation, the more it sticks. But Baldoni is being accused of something much more mild, plus even among those of us who think he's probably guilty, I am open to the idea that this was a cultural misunderstanding, that Wayfarer has a somewhat insular culture with shared religious belief systems and that when you tried to shift that do a mainstream movie with lots of non-Bah'aí participants, it caused problems. I don't necessarily think Baldoni is a terrible human being. I do think he lacks self-awareness and has some personality issues that resulted in him abusing his role as director/producer on this movie in inappropriate ways.

I personally think the most damaging things that have happened for Baldoni and Wayfarer were (1) the decision to go hard negative against Lively, and Reynolds and her friends like Taylor, to try and protect themselves, (2) the people they've chosen to surround themselves with in order to protect themselves, specifically Melissa Nathan, Bryan Freedman, and media proxies like Perez Hilton and Megyn Kelly -- these people have all trafficked heavily in misogynist stereotypes to discredit Lively, which I think is gross even if her allegations dont' wind up amounting to SH, (3) their decision before this all happened to brand themselves as male feminists and "allies" which in retrospect really looks like a cynical branding ploy and not particularly genuine. I think a lot of us are much more annoyed by the hypocrisy of some the stuff they've been accused of. Making money off of being an ally to women and then telling an actress who has given birth four times that she should be nude in a birth scene because it's not "normal" for her to wear a hospital gown? Sorry, but yuck. Whereas if they had not branded themselves as allies, I might look at that incident and see him as tone-deaf and incorrect, but not necessarily bad intentioned. Sometimes men have dumb ideas about how childbirth works.

The TL;DR (sorry for the lengthy response): most people don't struggle to put these allegations in perspective and there's really no history of people accused of similar things of being written off forever or never being given a chance to rehabilitate. Plus I think Baldoni/Wayfarer have done some stuff to make it worse for themselves when some humility and self-awareness might have made this all blow over a lot faster.

It makes no sense to say Reynolds didn’t call him a predator privately. Do you not understand this whole thing is public relations? I didn’t find out he called Baldoni a predator because Reynolds told me, just like back in August I didn’t hear about fat shaming rumors cause Blake blasted it out on her social media. They wanted to get the word out and they did.

Guess what? If it’s public information, they called him a predator publicly. They weren’t trying to keep it a secret. They wanted everybody to know and now we do.

The problem is, because they have a history of lies and manipulation, few people believe them, and they just look like idiots who blew up their careers.

No, because it was Baldoni who revealed he'd been called a predator. Reynolds didn't say it publicly in any way, and the people he allegedly told never talked about it.

He said it privately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Heath allegations are continuing to be problematic. Im seeing commentary that Blake just did the typical rich southern white lady who thinks everything the Black man does is sexual.

That is very unfair, because she also makes complaints about being uncomfortable with Baldoni and the OBGYN guy, who has a Jewish name. She pretty clearly articulates the issues with Heath are that he said he wouldn't turn around and face her while she was undressed but then he did, and that he should her an unwanted video of his wife. Those might be a stretch, but no more so than what she says about Baldoni, and there is no reason to make it a race thing. I'm 100% sure that if Baldoni or Sarowitz or the OBGYN actor had turned around and looked at her while she was breastfeeding or having makeup removed, she also would have complained.

From the texts, it also appears that Heath had specific discussions directly with Nathan about what would and would not be performed during as part of the crisis PR, so Heath is also a Kay player on that part of the litigation I would think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Heath allegations are continuing to be problematic. Im seeing commentary that Blake just did the typical rich southern white lady who thinks everything the Black man does is sexual.

That is very unfair, because she also makes complaints about being uncomfortable with Baldoni and the OBGYN guy, who has a Jewish name. She pretty clearly articulates the issues with Heath are that he said he wouldn't turn around and face her while she was undressed but then he did, and that he should her an unwanted video of his wife. Those might be a stretch, but no more so than what she says about Baldoni, and there is no reason to make it a race thing. I'm 100% sure that if Baldoni or Sarowitz or the OBGYN actor had turned around and looked at her while she was breastfeeding or having makeup removed, she also would have complained.

From the texts, it also appears that Heath had specific discussions directly with Nathan about what would and would not be performed during as part of the crisis PR, so Heath is also a Kay player on that part of the litigation I would think.

Yeah, Heath is central. I remember when the complaint first came out, it was sort of confusing at first because some allegations were against JB, and some against JH, and some against both. It was a little hard to keep track of and a lot of people, including me, had trouble keeping the facts straight because it was really against two people, not one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Heath allegations are continuing to be problematic. Im seeing commentary that Blake just did the typical rich southern white lady who thinks everything the Black man does is sexual.

That is very unfair, because she also makes complaints about being uncomfortable with Baldoni and the OBGYN guy, who has a Jewish name. She pretty clearly articulates the issues with Heath are that he said he wouldn't turn around and face her while she was undressed but then he did, and that he should her an unwanted video of his wife. Those might be a stretch, but no more so than what she says about Baldoni, and there is no reason to make it a race thing. I'm 100% sure that if Baldoni or Sarowitz or the OBGYN actor had turned around and looked at her while she was breastfeeding or having makeup removed, she also would have complained.

From the texts, it also appears that Heath had specific discussions directly with Nathan about what would and would not be performed during as part of the crisis PR, so Heath is also a Kay player on that part of the litigation I would think.

Yeah, Heath is central. I remember when the complaint first came out, it was sort of confusing at first because some allegations were against JB, and some against JH, and some against both. It was a little hard to keep track of and a lot of people, including me, had trouble keeping the facts straight because it was really against two people, not one.

I think it also confuses things that a lot of people refer to defendants collectively as "Baldoni" instead of "Wayfarer parties" like the lawyers do, to the extent that I have seen people accidentally attribute things Heath is alleged to have done to Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

The appropriate way to handle behavior like this is to file a complete with HR and sag. Nothing that happened to Blake is worthy of a lawsuit and an article in New York Times.

Especially since a list of complaints were raised halfway through, and there were no other incidents. As someone said up thread, that’s an HR success story. We never should’ve heard about it beyond that point. But Blake decided to burn it all down in August and start rumors about him and ice him out of the premiere which caused rampant speculation and damaged his reputation. She started the smear campaign, didn’t see the intense backlash against her coming, maybe didn’t think he’d hire a crisis communications firm to deal with it, and then seems like had a meltdown, and felt backed up against the wall.

Her team should have stopped her, but her lawyers must be making a killing.

I wonder if her hair product line has made a comeback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The appropriate way to handle behavior like this is to file a complete with HR and sag. Nothing that happened to Blake is worthy of a lawsuit and an article in New York Times.

Especially since a list of complaints were raised halfway through, and there were no other incidents. As someone said up thread, that’s an HR success story. We never should’ve heard about it beyond that point. But Blake decided to burn it all down in August and start rumors about him and ice him out of the premiere which caused rampant speculation and damaged his reputation. She started the smear campaign, didn’t see the intense backlash against her coming, maybe didn’t think he’d hire a crisis communications firm to deal with it, and then seems like had a meltdown, and felt backed up against the wall.

Her team should have stopped her, but her lawyers must be making a killing.

I wonder if her hair product line has made a comeback.

The reason the NYT found it newsworthy was the PR campaign, with those texts between Nathan, Abel, and Baldoni.

I also think it's highly unlikely Blake would have sued were it not for the texts. Her retaliation claims are stronger than the SH claims. And it's very problematic that Wayfarer agreed NOT to retaliate when they signed the 17-point list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appropriate way to handle behavior like this is to file a complete with HR and sag. Nothing that happened to Blake is worthy of a lawsuit and an article in New York Times.

Especially since a list of complaints were raised halfway through, and there were no other incidents. As someone said up thread, that’s an HR success story. We never should’ve heard about it beyond that point. But Blake decided to burn it all down in August and start rumors about him and ice him out of the premiere which caused rampant speculation and damaged his reputation. She started the smear campaign, didn’t see the intense backlash against her coming, maybe didn’t think he’d hire a crisis communications firm to deal with it, and then seems like had a meltdown, and felt backed up against the wall.

Her team should have stopped her, but her lawyers must be making a killing.

I wonder if her hair product line has made a comeback.

The reason the NYT found it newsworthy was the PR campaign, with those texts between Nathan, Abel, and Baldoni.

I also think it's highly unlikely Blake would have sued were it not for the texts. Her retaliation claims are stronger than the SH claims. And it's very problematic that Wayfarer agreed NOT to retaliate when they signed the 17-point list.

I’m curious to see how this gets argued in court. I think Baldoni can argue that he did NOT retaliate against her for SH at any point and that his actions were in response to what SHE did to HIM during the premiere. Let’s put this in corporate terms. If someone alleges SH at work, they can’t be fired for bringing those allegations but they can still be fired for cause. For example, if that person just starts coming to work late everyday, they can’t say oh you can’t fire me b/c once upon a time I alleged SH and that would be retaliation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appropriate way to handle behavior like this is to file a complete with HR and sag. Nothing that happened to Blake is worthy of a lawsuit and an article in New York Times.

Especially since a list of complaints were raised halfway through, and there were no other incidents. As someone said up thread, that’s an HR success story. We never should’ve heard about it beyond that point. But Blake decided to burn it all down in August and start rumors about him and ice him out of the premiere which caused rampant speculation and damaged his reputation. She started the smear campaign, didn’t see the intense backlash against her coming, maybe didn’t think he’d hire a crisis communications firm to deal with it, and then seems like had a meltdown, and felt backed up against the wall.

Her team should have stopped her, but her lawyers must be making a killing.

I wonder if her hair product line has made a comeback.

The reason the NYT found it newsworthy was the PR campaign, with those texts between Nathan, Abel, and Baldoni.

I also think it's highly unlikely Blake would have sued were it not for the texts. Her retaliation claims are stronger than the SH claims. And it's very problematic that Wayfarer agreed NOT to retaliate when they signed the 17-point list.

I’m curious to see how this gets argued in court. I think Baldoni can argue that he did NOT retaliate against her for SH at any point and that his actions were in response to what SHE did to HIM during the premiere. Let’s put this in corporate terms. If someone alleges SH at work, they can’t be fired for bringing those allegations but they can still be fired for cause. For example, if that person just starts coming to work late everyday, they can’t say oh you can’t fire me b/c once upon a time I alleged SH and that would be retaliation.

I agree, I think this whole period needs to be fleshed out in discovery... the icing out and why it happened and what exactly led up to the hiring of crisis PR, and of course, what they actually did. I've argued before that if all of this SH stuff was to steal the movie, then it's curious that she didn't make any more phony complaints during the second half of filming which is when she was trying to leverage her power. It's totally fair to argue that his actions against her were in defense and not retaliation, but also one can argue she was leveraging her star power and connections, not necessarily the SH (but can also argue she had set that up with putting the 17 pts in writing so that it would always be in the back of his mind as a looking threat). I think in both cases it' very hard to prove causality. For Baldoni, a really big problem is Nathan and Abel running their mouths. One of their statements was like "if she should make her grievances known" which does sound retaliatory, but maybe it's unfair to attribute their state of mind to him. So many interesting issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The appropriate way to handle behavior like this is to file a complete with HR and sag. Nothing that happened to Blake is worthy of a lawsuit and an article in New York Times.

Especially since a list of complaints were raised halfway through, and there were no other incidents. As someone said up thread, that’s an HR success story. We never should’ve heard about it beyond that point. But Blake decided to burn it all down in August and start rumors about him and ice him out of the premiere which caused rampant speculation and damaged his reputation. She started the smear campaign, didn’t see the intense backlash against her coming, maybe didn’t think he’d hire a crisis communications firm to deal with it, and then seems like had a meltdown, and felt backed up against the wall.

Her team should have stopped her, but her lawyers must be making a killing.

I wonder if her hair product line has made a comeback.

This. It is so disgusting, especially in the context of what is going on with Trump and law firms. Litigators clearly only care about $$

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appropriate way to handle behavior like this is to file a complete with HR and sag. Nothing that happened to Blake is worthy of a lawsuit and an article in New York Times.

Especially since a list of complaints were raised halfway through, and there were no other incidents. As someone said up thread, that’s an HR success story. We never should’ve heard about it beyond that point. But Blake decided to burn it all down in August and start rumors about him and ice him out of the premiere which caused rampant speculation and damaged his reputation. She started the smear campaign, didn’t see the intense backlash against her coming, maybe didn’t think he’d hire a crisis communications firm to deal with it, and then seems like had a meltdown, and felt backed up against the wall.

Her team should have stopped her, but her lawyers must be making a killing.

I wonder if her hair product line has made a comeback.

This. It is so disgusting, especially in the context of what is going on with Trump and law firms. Litigators clearly only care about $$

If so, same can be said about Baldoni’s side where billionaire Sarowitz has put an actual price tag on ensuring Lively and her family are destroyed. Freedman is getting very rich off all this through his lying and aggro behavior, which is completely disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appropriate way to handle behavior like this is to file a complete with HR and sag. Nothing that happened to Blake is worthy of a lawsuit and an article in New York Times.

Especially since a list of complaints were raised halfway through, and there were no other incidents. As someone said up thread, that’s an HR success story. We never should’ve heard about it beyond that point. But Blake decided to burn it all down in August and start rumors about him and ice him out of the premiere which caused rampant speculation and damaged his reputation. She started the smear campaign, didn’t see the intense backlash against her coming, maybe didn’t think he’d hire a crisis communications firm to deal with it, and then seems like had a meltdown, and felt backed up against the wall.

Her team should have stopped her, but her lawyers must be making a killing.

I wonder if her hair product line has made a comeback.

The reason the NYT found it newsworthy was the PR campaign, with those texts between Nathan, Abel, and Baldoni.

I also think it's highly unlikely Blake would have sued were it not for the texts. Her retaliation claims are stronger than the SH claims. And it's very problematic that Wayfarer agreed NOT to retaliate when they signed the 17-point list.

I’m curious to see how this gets argued in court. I think Baldoni can argue that he did NOT retaliate against her for SH at any point and that his actions were in response to what SHE did to HIM during the premiere. Let’s put this in corporate terms. If someone alleges SH at work, they can’t be fired for bringing those allegations but they can still be fired for cause. For example, if that person just starts coming to work late everyday, they can’t say oh you can’t fire me b/c once upon a time I alleged SH and that would be retaliation.

I agree, I think this whole period needs to be fleshed out in discovery... the icing out and why it happened and what exactly led up to the hiring of crisis PR, and of course, what they actually did. I've argued before that if all of this SH stuff was to steal the movie, then it's curious that she didn't make any more phony complaints during the second half of filming which is when she was trying to leverage her power. It's totally fair to argue that his actions against her were in defense and not retaliation, but also one can argue she was leveraging her star power and connections, not necessarily the SH (but can also argue she had set that up with putting the 17 pts in writing so that it would always be in the back of his mind as a looking threat). I think in both cases it' very hard to prove causality. For Baldoni, a really big problem is Nathan and Abel running their mouths. One of their statements was like "if she should make her grievances known" which does sound retaliatory, but maybe it's unfair to attribute their state of mind to him. So many interesting issues.

It seems like they knew for Justin, especially his brand is male feminism that it would be really hurtful If any rumors came out that he was inappropriate onset. I think the list was leverage for power, but there was never going to be an intent to sue. But they knew it would really wreck him. And I think that’s why the early rumors, when they wanted to turn the public against him because Blake was getting bad press, was just letting things slip like he fat shamed her. I don’t think they ever intended to go full of sexual harassment. Just to start sort of a whisper campaign that he made women uncomfortable.

It’s just fascinating how out of hand it got. I think Ryan and Blake were trying to stop the bleeding by having him release that phony letter, but the audacity of thinking anybody would release that? And it wasn’t even clear what he was apologizing for. It was such an absurd letter.

It’s hard to see that that letter is not going to be used against them. It clearly shows that they wanted him to publicly acknowledge his mistakes to take the heat off Blake. I’m betting by that point they had stopped listening to any professional in their lives and were just going ahead on their own. The letter smacks of Ryan’s tone. He clearly wrote it.

They just got too big to listen to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appropriate way to handle behavior like this is to file a complete with HR and sag. Nothing that happened to Blake is worthy of a lawsuit and an article in New York Times.

Especially since a list of complaints were raised halfway through, and there were no other incidents. As someone said up thread, that’s an HR success story. We never should’ve heard about it beyond that point. But Blake decided to burn it all down in August and start rumors about him and ice him out of the premiere which caused rampant speculation and damaged his reputation. She started the smear campaign, didn’t see the intense backlash against her coming, maybe didn’t think he’d hire a crisis communications firm to deal with it, and then seems like had a meltdown, and felt backed up against the wall.

Her team should have stopped her, but her lawyers must be making a killing.

I wonder if her hair product line has made a comeback.

The reason the NYT found it newsworthy was the PR campaign, with those texts between Nathan, Abel, and Baldoni.

I also think it's highly unlikely Blake would have sued were it not for the texts. Her retaliation claims are stronger than the SH claims. And it's very problematic that Wayfarer agreed NOT to retaliate when they signed the 17-point list.

I’m curious to see how this gets argued in court. I think Baldoni can argue that he did NOT retaliate against her for SH at any point and that his actions were in response to what SHE did to HIM during the premiere. Let’s put this in corporate terms. If someone alleges SH at work, they can’t be fired for bringing those allegations but they can still be fired for cause. For example, if that person just starts coming to work late everyday, they can’t say oh you can’t fire me b/c once upon a time I alleged SH and that would be retaliation.

Some of the texts are very problematic for Baldoni. There is a text where he he essentially acknowledges that she believes her own allegations, and that they have to do something or "she'll never give up " it undercuts his argument that she was lying and just trying to steal the movie. And the texts about how he wants her buried (though those might be hearsay, we'll see), and him texting a tweet about Hailey Bieber being accused of being a mean girl and saying "this is what we need." I think there are others too, and can't remember.

The texts are a real problem for him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appropriate way to handle behavior like this is to file a complete with HR and sag. Nothing that happened to Blake is worthy of a lawsuit and an article in New York Times.

Especially since a list of complaints were raised halfway through, and there were no other incidents. As someone said up thread, that’s an HR success story. We never should’ve heard about it beyond that point. But Blake decided to burn it all down in August and start rumors about him and ice him out of the premiere which caused rampant speculation and damaged his reputation. She started the smear campaign, didn’t see the intense backlash against her coming, maybe didn’t think he’d hire a crisis communications firm to deal with it, and then seems like had a meltdown, and felt backed up against the wall.

Her team should have stopped her, but her lawyers must be making a killing.

I wonder if her hair product line has made a comeback.

The reason the NYT found it newsworthy was the PR campaign, with those texts between Nathan, Abel, and Baldoni.

I also think it's highly unlikely Blake would have sued were it not for the texts. Her retaliation claims are stronger than the SH claims. And it's very problematic that Wayfarer agreed NOT to retaliate when they signed the 17-point list.

I’m curious to see how this gets argued in court. I think Baldoni can argue that he did NOT retaliate against her for SH at any point and that his actions were in response to what SHE did to HIM during the premiere. Let’s put this in corporate terms. If someone alleges SH at work, they can’t be fired for bringing those allegations but they can still be fired for cause. For example, if that person just starts coming to work late everyday, they can’t say oh you can’t fire me b/c once upon a time I alleged SH and that would be retaliation.

I agree, I think this whole period needs to be fleshed out in discovery... the icing out and why it happened and what exactly led up to the hiring of crisis PR, and of course, what they actually did. I've argued before that if all of this SH stuff was to steal the movie, then it's curious that she didn't make any more phony complaints during the second half of filming which is when she was trying to leverage her power. It's totally fair to argue that his actions against her were in defense and not retaliation, but also one can argue she was leveraging her star power and connections, not necessarily the SH (but can also argue she had set that up with putting the 17 pts in writing so that it would always be in the back of his mind as a looking threat). I think in both cases it' very hard to prove causality. For Baldoni, a really big problem is Nathan and Abel running their mouths. One of their statements was like "if she should make her grievances known" which does sound retaliatory, but maybe it's unfair to attribute their state of mind to him. So many interesting issues.

It seems like they knew for Justin, especially his brand is male feminism that it would be really hurtful If any rumors came out that he was inappropriate onset. I think the list was leverage for power, but there was never going to be an intent to sue. But they knew it would really wreck him. And I think that’s why the early rumors, when they wanted to turn the public against him because Blake was getting bad press, was just letting things slip like he fat shamed her. I don’t think they ever intended to go full of sexual harassment. Just to start sort of a whisper campaign that he made women uncomfortable.

It’s just fascinating how out of hand it got. I think Ryan and Blake were trying to stop the bleeding by having him release that phony letter, but the audacity of thinking anybody would release that? And it wasn’t even clear what he was apologizing for. It was such an absurd letter.

It’s hard to see that that letter is not going to be used against them. It clearly shows that they wanted him to publicly acknowledge his mistakes to take the heat off Blake. I’m betting by that point they had stopped listening to any professional in their lives and were just going ahead on their own. The letter smacks of Ryan’s tone. He clearly wrote it.

They just got too big to listen to anyone.

I thought it had appeared by the time of the letter that some retaliation campaign from Baldoni had already started, but I could be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appropriate way to handle behavior like this is to file a complete with HR and sag. Nothing that happened to Blake is worthy of a lawsuit and an article in New York Times.

Especially since a list of complaints were raised halfway through, and there were no other incidents. As someone said up thread, that’s an HR success story. We never should’ve heard about it beyond that point. But Blake decided to burn it all down in August and start rumors about him and ice him out of the premiere which caused rampant speculation and damaged his reputation. She started the smear campaign, didn’t see the intense backlash against her coming, maybe didn’t think he’d hire a crisis communications firm to deal with it, and then seems like had a meltdown, and felt backed up against the wall.

Her team should have stopped her, but her lawyers must be making a killing.

I wonder if her hair product line has made a comeback.

The reason the NYT found it newsworthy was the PR campaign, with those texts between Nathan, Abel, and Baldoni.

I also think it's highly unlikely Blake would have sued were it not for the texts. Her retaliation claims are stronger than the SH claims. And it's very problematic that Wayfarer agreed NOT to retaliate when they signed the 17-point list.

I’m curious to see how this gets argued in court. I think Baldoni can argue that he did NOT retaliate against her for SH at any point and that his actions were in response to what SHE did to HIM during the premiere. Let’s put this in corporate terms. If someone alleges SH at work, they can’t be fired for bringing those allegations but they can still be fired for cause. For example, if that person just starts coming to work late everyday, they can’t say oh you can’t fire me b/c once upon a time I alleged SH and that would be retaliation.

Some of the texts are very problematic for Baldoni. There is a text where he he essentially acknowledges that she believes her own allegations, and that they have to do something or "she'll never give up " it undercuts his argument that she was lying and just trying to steal the movie. And the texts about how he wants her buried (though those might be hearsay, we'll see), and him texting a tweet about Hailey Bieber being accused of being a mean girl and saying "this is what we need." I think there are others too, and can't remember.

The texts are a real problem for him

Just remember we’ve only really seen texts from the wayfarer parties—the ones taken from Abel’s phone and those JB released. Discovery will tell us what BL was saying, what RR was saying, what LS was saying and maybe what TS was saying. Some online believe Blake has texts about how to subtly smear JB. You do have to remember she iced him out, had the entire cast unfollow him etc. Do you really think there’s no paper trail of her own activities? JB has a right to defend himself. SH allegations are not a free pass to do what ever you want to another person.