Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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?

If you think the broader online reaction is unreliable, being tampered with, or generally not representative then it makes sense you would feel that way. I’m not as convinced. I think dcum is probably a lot less representative than what you’re seeing elsewhere actually. DCUM I would guess is mostly women, mostly but not entirely liberal (it is dc after all) and middle to upper middle class. But if the lawyers do a good job of picking a jury, then undoubtedly some of the jurors will share the same views as some of the proLively posters here, so it’s good to hear different sides of the argument. They probably have interns reading a lot of this stuff mapping out the different arguments they’ll be confronted with lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry, now which conspiracy theory is the one you disagree with? That Lively’s PR shills/bots are posting here, or that conservatives manipulate social media? Just checking lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry, now which conspiracy theory is the one you disagree with? That Lively’s PR shills/bots are posting here, or that conservatives manipulate social media? Just checking lol.

That Justin Baldoni is manipulating Reddit, and that conservatives are funding anti Blake Lovely social media.

If DCUM had a poll function, you’d find the pro Baldoni posters are both feminists and democrats.

[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.

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.

I couldn’t agree more. And I would never have thought 8 years ago that I would be on the “fake news” bandwagon. But the coverage of Baldoni in traditional media seems really biased in a way that’s hard to ignore.

[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.

What do you want us Baldoni supporters to? To argue that this influencer might be right? I’m sure that I could find a Baldoni influencer that could say that the facts lean towards Justin’s story. It’s all a paid narrative and nothing more.

Look, I have worked myself into a frenzy over the past few months just asserting my viewpoint. But I have a life outside of this case. As I shared before, some of us can accept that there is a whole world of more important things going on out there in life and the country, beyond this case. And it’s okay to just give it a break sometimes.

Like I suggested before—eat, walk that dog, maybe even take a nap or two or share your theories with your spin class. But stop letting this crap consumer your day and night.

Like another poster, I took in some cherry blossoms. Did some laundry one day. Thinking about having a beer later.

I doubt those MTDs will be decided by tomorrow. Chill a bit.

[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.

What do you want us Baldoni supporters to? To argue that this influencer might be right? I’m sure that I could find a Baldoni influencer that could say that the facts lean towards Justin’s story. It’s all a paid narrative and nothing more.

Look, I have worked myself into a frenzy over the past few months just asserting my viewpoint. But I have a life outside of this case. As I shared before, some of us can accept that there is a whole world of more important things going on out there in life and the country, beyond this case. And it’s okay to just give it a break sometimes.

Like I suggested before—eat, walk that dog, maybe even take a nap or two or share your theories with your spin class. But stop letting this crap consumer your day and night.

Like another poster, I took in some cherry blossoms. Did some laundry one day. Thinking about having a beer later.

I doubt those MTDs will be decided by tomorrow. Chill a bit.

I, the person you are responding to, am the same one who posted about the cherry blossoms. I don’t know why you feel like you need to police the comings and goings of people on this board, but I can post here occasionally and also enjoy my life lol. I have not worked myself into a frenzy and do not need you to do so, either. My schedule may not synch up with yours. Feel free not to respond to every post I make.

I am not suggesting you argue my side. I’m just explaining my view, same as you have done.

One other unrelated observation is that while Baldoni has been in Hawaii with his family for the last month, lawyer extraordinaire Bryan Freedman was quick to doublespeak that of course this was not a vacation: “I wouldn’t call it a vacation. I don’t think anybody who has been accused of heinous, arguably what are crimes, is on a ‘vacation.’ I think he is trying to gather with his family and get some semblance of peace.” Heinous crimes, you say, Bryan Freedman? Maybe stop “helping” your client this way.

[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.

What do you want us Baldoni supporters to? To argue that this influencer might be right? I’m sure that I could find a Baldoni influencer that could say that the facts lean towards Justin’s story. It’s all a paid narrative and nothing more.

Look, I have worked myself into a frenzy over the past few months just asserting my viewpoint. But I have a life outside of this case. As I shared before, some of us can accept that there is a whole world of more important things going on out there in life and the country, beyond this case. And it’s okay to just give it a break sometimes.

Like I suggested before—eat, walk that dog, maybe even take a nap or two or share your theories with your spin class. But stop letting this crap consumer your day and night.

Like another poster, I took in some cherry blossoms. Did some laundry one day. Thinking about having a beer later.

I doubt those MTDs will be decided by tomorrow. Chill a bit.

I, the person you are responding to, am the same one who posted about the cherry blossoms. I don’t know why you feel like you need to police the comings and goings of people on this board, but I can post here occasionally and also enjoy my life lol. I have not worked myself into a frenzy and do not need you to do so, either. My schedule may not synch up with yours. Feel free not to respond to every post I make.

I am not suggesting you argue my side. I’m just explaining my view, same as you have done.

One other unrelated observation is that while Baldoni has been in Hawaii with his family for the last month, lawyer extraordinaire Bryan Freedman was quick to doublespeak that of course this was not a vacation: “I wouldn’t call it a vacation. I don’t think anybody who has been accused of heinous, arguably what are crimes, is on a ‘vacation.’ I think he is trying to gather with his family and get some semblance of peace.” Heinous crimes, you say, Bryan Freedman? Maybe stop “helping” your client this way.

In fairness, they left town because of the fires. Maybe once they were out of town, it felt easier to stay there for mental health purposes. He has kids but I’m guessing LA schools in impacted areas are offering online options like the Covid days? Anyone know?

[Anonymous]

The wayfarer parties have responded to Reynolds’ MTD. There’s a lot in there that I won’t get into tonight, but one point they raised that I hadn’t considered is that they only have to prove actual malice towards Baldoni. The other wayfarer parties are not public figures, so the burden is lower. Interesting. Everyone is focused on Blake and Baldoni but the sideshow has potential to do some real damage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The wayfarer parties have responded to Reynolds’ MTD. There’s a lot in there that I won’t get into tonight, but one point they raised that I hadn’t considered is that they only have to prove actual malice towards Baldoni. The other wayfarer parties are not public figures, so the burden is lower. Interesting. Everyone is focused on Blake and Baldoni but the sideshow has potential to do some real damage.

Ohh thanks, I know what I'm reading with tomorrow's morning coffee. I do agree most of them aren't public figures but I'm not sure anyone other than Baldoni was defamed. Maybe Heath. Wallace is clearly not a public figure and has a pretty good case of defamation but he's kind of separate from the Wayfarer parties. Nathan and Abel aren't public figures but the reporting was mostly quoting their texts. I guess they can argue calling it a smear campaign defamed them. I do agree that we tend to lump everyone together and call them Baldoni, I'm trying to be more aware and not do that!

[Anonymous]

Looking at the quotes Freedman uses from Reynolds’s interviews and remembering when you guys told me it was too much and overboard for Gottlieb to quote Baldoni’s Ted Talk, lol. Good times.

[Anonymous]

Freedman could have effectively mooted a bunch of these MTD issues for himself by just doing the work and moving to file an amended complaint that cures any of the defects that he is worried about. Then the judge would be hard pressed to say in ruling on the MTDs that the issues weren’t curable if they really were. He’s in the second circuit so an amended complaint wouldn’t automatically moot a MTD, but Liman would have discretion to consider it and apply his ruling as to the new complaint.

But then Freedman would have to put his money where his mouth is, which I suspect he can’t really do for some of his more tangential claims like extortion etc.

Maybe Freedman will do this after the replies are filed, to get the last word - if he sees a benefit from it (unless I’m missing some reason why he couldn’t).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the quotes Freedman uses from Reynolds’s interviews and remembering when you guys told me it was too much and overboard for Gottlieb to quote Baldoni’s Ted Talk, lol. Good times.

Freedman’s quote was at least within the relevant timeframe July 2024. I suspect he’ll definitely use it at trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Freedman could have effectively mooted a bunch of these MTD issues for himself by just doing the work and moving to file an amended complaint that cures any of the defects that he is worried about. Then the judge would be hard pressed to say in ruling on the MTDs that the issues weren’t curable if they really were. He’s in the second circuit so an amended complaint wouldn’t automatically moot a MTD, but Liman would have discretion to consider it and apply his ruling as to the new complaint.

But then Freedman would have to put his money where his mouth is, which I suspect he can’t really do for some of his more tangential claims like extortion etc.

Maybe Freedman will do this after the replies are filed, to get the last word - if he sees a benefit from it (unless I’m missing some reason why he couldn’t).

I think this is just part of it. Amendments are pretty common. There’s going to be a lot of back and forth with this one. Might not be as entertaining for us spectators, but I think this just how it goes.

[Anonymous]

Blake and Ryan’s lawyers have a dc connection. Gottlieb works for Wilkie, Farr and Gallagher, which is a K street firm. Kamala’s husband works there, they’re the ones who sued Giuliani and now they just announced a 100M deal with the Trump administration (which Kamala’s husband is apparently against). There’s a few lawyers across different firms working the case, but it seems like Gottlieb and this firm are the lead attorneys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Freedman could have effectively mooted a bunch of these MTD issues for himself by just doing the work and moving to file an amended complaint that cures any of the defects that he is worried about. Then the judge would be hard pressed to say in ruling on the MTDs that the issues weren’t curable if they really were. He’s in the second circuit so an amended complaint wouldn’t automatically moot a MTD, but Liman would have discretion to consider it and apply his ruling as to the new complaint.

But then Freedman would have to put his money where his mouth is, which I suspect he can’t really do for some of his more tangential claims like extortion etc.

Maybe Freedman will do this after the replies are filed, to get the last word - if he sees a benefit from it (unless I’m missing some reason why he couldn’t).

I think this is just part of it. Amendments are pretty common. There’s going to be a lot of back and forth with this one. Might not be as entertaining for us spectators, but I think this just how it goes.

Agree, another litigator who has made the same point about amended complaints being common previously on this thread. There really is no point in rushing to put together an amended complaint without knowing which arguments the judge is receptive to. Might as well wait for his decision at this point.