Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://people.com/blake-lively-stronger-case-justin-baldoni-lawyer-documentary-11705461?taid=67eac1a9e1586a0001229bce&utm_campaign=peoplemagazine&utm_content=new&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com

This is dumb imo. Being uncomfortable doesn't make it sexual harrassment. That's already been decided in court in previous court cases. Neither are going to win, but Blake has ruined her reputation

Watched it. Was biased. They had someone on there who openly admitted she was team Blake and most of her commentary went in that direction. Perez Hilton was also in the documentary, and while he’s been mostly team Justin on social, he gave neutral commentary or was at least edited that way (so you wouldn’t really know where he stood unless you followed him on social) so there really wasn’t anyone on there speaking up for Justin. They also didn’t point out some of Blake’s lies, like the smells so good lie she told about the dance video and they didn’t show nice pool being murdered in front of the flower shop. Essentially, they left out some of the stuff that made Blake and Ryan look really bad. It was also less than an hour and probably not enough time to really do the story justice given the complexity. I’ve said this before but Justin is very lucky social media exists because legacy media has really taken Blake’s side, not surprising given the power dynamics.

[Anonymous]

Who watched the new documentary on ID tonight?

[Anonymous]

From the article in the doc: “Attorney Dina Doll says near the end of the documentary, ‘My professional opinion, Blake Lively has the stronger case. Because all of Justin Baldoni’s arguments about fame and control don’t really refute her claim of sexual harassment…. Those allegations — the improvising of kissing, the describing his genitalia, talking about pornography — regardless of where your workplace is, those seem to be pretty strong basis for a claim of sexual harassment,’ adds Doll.”

I agree.

[Anonymous]

When did she allege he described his genitalia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When did she allege he described his genitalia?

It seems that the documentary is relying on the disputed 30 point complaint included in the CRD and not the 17 point complaint that wayfarer actually signed. I believe wayfarer denies ever seeing or signing the 30 point complaint.

[Anonymous]

Just dropping this pro-Lively piece by a Harvard attorney here from Ms. Magazine — I don’t remember it being posted when it was published 3/11: https://msmagazine.com/2025/03/11/entitlement-harassment-and-retaliation-the-justin-baldoni-story/

Interestingly it sees the book itself as a bad pick for someone who was genuinely rather than performatively feminist.

An excerpt:

“In this author’s opinion—which I have to say because Baldoni and his team tend to file lawsuits against publications for “defamation”—Justin Baldoni found a commercially successful niche as a public-facing feminist. In my opinion, he loved the attention from it, and it made him feel like a good guy after what he has described as a past of porn addiction and not quite understanding consent. I find the claims pushed by Baldoni, his team, and their defenders online and in various legal documents to be unpersuasive at best and harmful at worst.

“This piece aims to add context at a time when Baldoni continues to play his cases out in the press. He has strong support from conservative all-stars like Candace Owens, who pushes the story that Lively just had a crush on Baldoni, and Megyn Kelly—who, in a recent CPAC speech, characterized Lively’s claims as an example of ‘leftist overreach,’ called Lively a ‘high maintenance diva bully brat’ who is ‘looking a lot like Amber Heard’ (a proxy for ‘unbelievable’), and compared Baldoni to men she believes are unfairly maligned, like Daniel Penny and Kyle Rittenhouse.

“It is for a court to decide whose claims are most legally compelling, but below, I am going to sketch out Baldoni’s feminism, the movie release and controversy, ongoing court cases, and Lively’s allegations and Baldoni’s meager responses—so that readers might find, as I do, that this battle actually looks quite similar to what happens any time a woman stands up for herself against a well-resourced man.”

[Anonymous]

It doesn’t matter what “influencers” or opinionated theorists say. What matters is what the judge and jury decide in this case.

Yep, read the People mag headlines. Still unconvinced. Let’s see this process thru.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t matter what “influencers” or opinionated theorists say. What matters is what the judge and jury decide in this case.

Yep, read the People mag headlines. Still unconvinced. Let’s see this process thru.

And I’ve stepped away to live my life for a few days. Suggest that everyone else go out and breathe some fresh air. Let’s see how these MTDs go.

[Anonymous]

I mean, it’s funny that Baldini supporters race here to post Candace Owens and random TikTok links from Reddit when they support their guy, but a pro-Lively documentary and Ms. Magazine article inspire comments that “it doesn’t matter what ‘influencers’ or opinionated theorists say.” I mean, that’s a very large part of what you have been posting here for nearly 500 pages. And while what you say is ultimately correct for the court case result, it has also been discussed that public and popular opinion of these people matter for their future careers, and maybe even for the jury pool.

Not trying to lure people back here to discuss these individual pieces in more detail. I’m tired of you all, too. Just noting that if supportive magazine articles and individual people speaking out defending Baldoni are relevant generally in the context of this thread, then same is true when it happens for Lively, even if you don’t like them.

[Anonymous]

I saw the cherry blossoms with my daughter on Sunday. They were lovely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, it’s funny that Baldini supporters race here to post Candace Owens and random TikTok links from Reddit when they support their guy, but a pro-Lively documentary and Ms. Magazine article inspire comments that “it doesn’t matter what ‘influencers’ or opinionated theorists say.” I mean, that’s a very large part of what you have been posting here for nearly 500 pages. And while what you say is ultimately correct for the court case result, it has also been discussed that public and popular opinion of these people matter for their future careers, and maybe even for the jury pool.

Not trying to lure people back here to discuss these individual pieces in more detail. I’m tired of you all, too. Just noting that if supportive magazine articles and individual people speaking out defending Baldoni are relevant generally in the context of this thread, then same is true when it happens for Lively, even if you don’t like them.

It’s really interesting though, on an intellectual level, how the support is splitting. Baldoni seems to have the support of “the people” as measured through public reaction, while Lively seems to have the support of the elite and legacy media. Though many of us started following this case because of the escapism it provided, it feels eerily similar to what happened with the election. Democrats (and I am one before you start attacking me) carved out this very high brow moral high ground to the point where they were shaming other democrats for their views on things like transgenders in women’s sports. I mean just look at the language PP used to describe “random” tik tok influencers, suggesting that the opinion of regular people is less important than that of the NYT or whoever else. This myopia cost democrats mightily and this case seems to be playing out in a similar way. Trump’s version of conservatism is quite populist, so it should come as no surprise that the conservatives are team Baldoni. For my part, I’m a frustrated democrat who’s been watching this slow car crash in politics and can’t help but see the parallels in this case. I think it’s partly why I’m interested in seeing how it all plays out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, it’s funny that Baldini supporters race here to post Candace Owens and random TikTok links from Reddit when they support their guy, but a pro-Lively documentary and Ms. Magazine article inspire comments that “it doesn’t matter what ‘influencers’ or opinionated theorists say.” I mean, that’s a very large part of what you have been posting here for nearly 500 pages. And while what you say is ultimately correct for the court case result, it has also been discussed that public and popular opinion of these people matter for their future careers, and maybe even for the jury pool.

Not trying to lure people back here to discuss these individual pieces in more detail. I’m tired of you all, too. Just noting that if supportive magazine articles and individual people speaking out defending Baldoni are relevant generally in the context of this thread, then same is true when it happens for Lively, even if you don’t like them.

It’s really interesting though, on an intellectual level, how the support is splitting. Baldoni seems to have the support of “the people” as measured through public reaction, while Lively seems to have the support of the elite and legacy media. Though many of us started following this case because of the escapism it provided, it feels eerily similar to what happened with the election. Democrats (and I am one before you start attacking me) carved out this very high brow moral high ground to the point where they were shaming other democrats for their views on things like transgenders in women’s sports. I mean just look at the language PP used to describe “random” tik tok influencers, suggesting that the opinion of regular people is less important than that of the NYT or whoever else. This myopia cost democrats mightily and this case seems to be playing out in a similar way. Trump’s version of conservatism is quite populist, so it should come as no surprise that the conservatives are team Baldoni. For my part, I’m a frustrated democrat who’s been watching this slow car crash in politics and can’t help but see the parallels in this case. I think it’s partly why I’m interested in seeing how it all plays out.

Hardly surprising at all. Blake has the support of the media that can be bought with either money or power. The fact that the traditional media has been “captured” by the rich and powerful has led to the growth of alt media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, it’s funny that Baldini supporters race here to post Candace Owens and random TikTok links from Reddit when they support their guy, but a pro-Lively documentary and Ms. Magazine article inspire comments that “it doesn’t matter what ‘influencers’ or opinionated theorists say.” I mean, that’s a very large part of what you have been posting here for nearly 500 pages. And while what you say is ultimately correct for the court case result, it has also been discussed that public and popular opinion of these people matter for their future careers, and maybe even for the jury pool.

Not trying to lure people back here to discuss these individual pieces in more detail. I’m tired of you all, too. Just noting that if supportive magazine articles and individual people speaking out defending Baldoni are relevant generally in the context of this thread, then same is true when it happens for Lively, even if you don’t like them.

It’s really interesting though, on an intellectual level, how the support is splitting. Baldoni seems to have the support of “the people” as measured through public reaction, while Lively seems to have the support of the elite and legacy media. Though many of us started following this case because of the escapism it provided, it feels eerily similar to what happened with the election. Democrats (and I am one before you start attacking me) carved out this very high brow moral high ground to the point where they were shaming other democrats for their views on things like transgenders in women’s sports. I mean just look at the language PP used to describe “random” tik tok influencers, suggesting that the opinion of regular people is less important than that of the NYT or whoever else. This myopia cost democrats mightily and this case seems to be playing out in a similar way. Trump’s version of conservatism is quite populist, so it should come as no surprise that the conservatives are team Baldoni. For my part, I’m a frustrated democrat who’s been watching this slow car crash in politics and can’t help but see the parallels in this case. I think it’s partly why I’m interested in seeing how it all plays out.

I take your point, but there’s another way to look at this. I think that there is a selection of the population that is VERY online and on Reddit or other social media a lot, and there is a lot of posted support for Baldoni there.

I think a lot of people who are not really online on this issue either don’t care or support Lively (you can disagree).

This is why I posted links and articles earlier about how the book Careless People showed that Facebook manipulation of content led to the election of Trump, and how some female conservative media personalities like Candace Owens and Megyn Kelley were changing their approach as news-y providers and moving into more of a social media space to perhaps manipulate female voters in the way that Joe Rogan and other bro content providers have been so successful in manipulating male voters. You see the online surge of support as organic of course, but I do question this, and Careless People illustrated how very easily social media could be manipulated to influence people’s opinions without them ever being aware of it. So I’m skeptical that everything we see online is real.

You won’t like this, but: Reddit was a specific target of PR firms, and DCUM is not (lol). Support here on DCUM between the two seems more balanced, whereas Baldoni is clearly killing it on Reddit (lol). This has been used by Baldoni supporters to suggest their opposition here were PR firm shills or bots or whatever. Well, I’m just a dmv lawyer mom. What if DCUM is actually more representative of the general population than Reddit, ha?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, it’s funny that Baldini supporters race here to post Candace Owens and random TikTok links from Reddit when they support their guy, but a pro-Lively documentary and Ms. Magazine article inspire comments that “it doesn’t matter what ‘influencers’ or opinionated theorists say.” I mean, that’s a very large part of what you have been posting here for nearly 500 pages. And while what you say is ultimately correct for the court case result, it has also been discussed that public and popular opinion of these people matter for their future careers, and maybe even for the jury pool.

Not trying to lure people back here to discuss these individual pieces in more detail. I’m tired of you all, too. Just noting that if supportive magazine articles and individual people speaking out defending Baldoni are relevant generally in the context of this thread, then same is true when it happens for Lively, even if you don’t like them.

It’s really interesting though, on an intellectual level, how the support is splitting. Baldoni seems to have the support of “the people” as measured through public reaction, while Lively seems to have the support of the elite and legacy media. Though many of us started following this case because of the escapism it provided, it feels eerily similar to what happened with the election. Democrats (and I am one before you start attacking me) carved out this very high brow moral high ground to the point where they were shaming other democrats for their views on things like transgenders in women’s sports. I mean just look at the language PP used to describe “random” tik tok influencers, suggesting that the opinion of regular people is less important than that of the NYT or whoever else. This myopia cost democrats mightily and this case seems to be playing out in a similar way. Trump’s version of conservatism is quite populist, so it should come as no surprise that the conservatives are team Baldoni. For my part, I’m a frustrated democrat who’s been watching this slow car crash in politics and can’t help but see the parallels in this case. I think it’s partly why I’m interested in seeing how it all plays out.

I take your point, but there’s another way to look at this. I think that there is a selection of the population that is VERY online and on Reddit or other social media a lot, and there is a lot of posted support for Baldoni there.

I think a lot of people who are not really online on this issue either don’t care or support Lively (you can disagree).

This is why I posted links and articles earlier about how the book Careless People showed that Facebook manipulation of content led to the election of Trump, and how some female conservative media personalities like Candace Owens and Megyn Kelley were changing their approach as news-y providers and moving into more of a social media space to perhaps manipulate female voters in the way that Joe Rogan and other bro content providers have been so successful in manipulating male voters. You see the online surge of support as organic of course, but I do question this, and Careless People illustrated how very easily social media could be manipulated to influence people’s opinions without them ever being aware of it. So I’m skeptical that everything we see online is real.

You won’t like this, but: Reddit was a specific target of PR firms, and DCUM is not (lol). Support here on DCUM between the two seems more balanced, whereas Baldoni is clearly killing it on Reddit (lol). This has been used by Baldoni supporters to suggest their opposition here were PR firm shills or bots or whatever. Well, I’m just a dmv lawyer mom. What if DCUM is actually more representative of the general population than Reddit, ha?

I also posted about how misogyny isn’t just hatred of women, but the punishment arm of sexism to keep women who reach too high in their place. And we see that a lot in conservative and authoritarian regimes. Trump and his people have had the whole social media scene figured out for some time now, and these are the kinds of messages and social issues they want to use with people. I just don’t think it’s all a coincidence tbh. They didn’t create the controversy, but I do think they are latching on and doing stuff for their own purposes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, it’s funny that Baldini supporters race here to post Candace Owens and random TikTok links from Reddit when they support their guy, but a pro-Lively documentary and Ms. Magazine article inspire comments that “it doesn’t matter what ‘influencers’ or opinionated theorists say.” I mean, that’s a very large part of what you have been posting here for nearly 500 pages. And while what you say is ultimately correct for the court case result, it has also been discussed that public and popular opinion of these people matter for their future careers, and maybe even for the jury pool.

Not trying to lure people back here to discuss these individual pieces in more detail. I’m tired of you all, too. Just noting that if supportive magazine articles and individual people speaking out defending Baldoni are relevant generally in the context of this thread, then same is true when it happens for Lively, even if you don’t like them.

It’s really interesting though, on an intellectual level, how the support is splitting. Baldoni seems to have the support of “the people” as measured through public reaction, while Lively seems to have the support of the elite and legacy media. Though many of us started following this case because of the escapism it provided, it feels eerily similar to what happened with the election. Democrats (and I am one before you start attacking me) carved out this very high brow moral high ground to the point where they were shaming other democrats for their views on things like transgenders in women’s sports. I mean just look at the language PP used to describe “random” tik tok influencers, suggesting that the opinion of regular people is less important than that of the NYT or whoever else. This myopia cost democrats mightily and this case seems to be playing out in a similar way. Trump’s version of conservatism is quite populist, so it should come as no surprise that the conservatives are team Baldoni. For my part, I’m a frustrated democrat who’s been watching this slow car crash in politics and can’t help but see the parallels in this case. I think it’s partly why I’m interested in seeing how it all plays out.

I take your point, but there’s another way to look at this. I think that there is a selection of the population that is VERY online and on Reddit or other social media a lot, and there is a lot of posted support for Baldoni there.

I think a lot of people who are not really online on this issue either don’t care or support Lively (you can disagree).

This is why I posted links and articles earlier about how the book Careless People showed that Facebook manipulation of content led to the election of Trump, and how some female conservative media personalities like Candace Owens and Megyn Kelley were changing their approach as news-y providers and moving into more of a social media space to perhaps manipulate female voters in the way that Joe Rogan and other bro content providers have been so successful in manipulating male voters. You see the online surge of support as organic of course, but I do question this, and Careless People illustrated how very easily social media could be manipulated to influence people’s opinions without them ever being aware of it. So I’m skeptical that everything we see online is real.

You won’t like this, but: Reddit was a specific target of PR firms, and DCUM is not (lol). Support here on DCUM between the two seems more balanced, whereas Baldoni is clearly killing it on Reddit (lol). This has been used by Baldoni supporters to suggest their opposition here were PR firm shills or bots or whatever. Well, I’m just a dmv lawyer mom. What if DCUM is actually more representative of the general population than Reddit, ha?

I also posted about how misogyny isn’t just hatred of women, but the punishment arm of sexism to keep women who reach too high in their place. And we see that a lot in conservative and authoritarian regimes. Trump and his people have had the whole social media scene figured out for some time now, and these are the kinds of messages and social issues they want to use with people. I just don’t think it’s all a coincidence tbh. They didn’t create the controversy, but I do think they are latching on and doing stuff for their own purposes.

These conspiracy theories are utter insanity. Blake has been shown to be both a liar and not a likable person. The media conspiracy has been to try to convince us of the opposite.