Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
I advise you to stop taking the comments so personally. If you posted about defamation but not about the video, this isn't about you. I'm talking about the Baldoni fans who posted about the video (and then one followed up asking about how the subpoena could put NYT on the hook more for defamation). But, more generally, I'm allowed to notice and post about the hypocrisies coming out of Team Baldoni, and your "reality" still ignores the fact that people on your team really do insist that lies are truth and truth are lies like we are all living on Animal Farm or something, and you do not call them out on it. |
Anonymous
Look, it’s obvious who you are. You’re obsessed with ‘team baldoni’ people. I’m not ‘team’ anyone and am just interested in the legal issues. And I’m the only poster on here who thinks the NYT has defamed Baldoni. No one else does. So yes, you’re mixing me up with others. |
Anonymous
Dp, but I think that too. |
Anonymous
It’s likely the obsessed poster who actually listens to the hearings and “takes notes.” Has lost any perspective whatsoever. |
Anonymous
I think he might. I think the judge will reduce the suit a fair amount, but might let some issues go to a jury. As reminder, Palin was sent to a jury- twice. And that was very clearly and obviously some loose language (and a mistake) in an Op Ed that was quickly acknowledged and corrected. This was a hit piece. It doesn’t even really make sense that the NYT would be covering this silly B/C list actor lawsuit except they wanted to make it into another Hollywood #metoo piece. And yes, if it gets to a jury, context will matter. The NYT typical standards for reporting will become an issue, etc. |
Anonymous
Pp ok I stand corrected then. I haven’t seen your posts. I’ve been on here for ages and I haven’t seen anyone else say this. If you agree, you are in limited co |
Anonymous
Yes, agree. The one who was also mad for days over the protective order, and wanted everyone to know Blake ‘won’ that issue. They’re exhausting. |
Anonymous
Very forcefully worded post. A++ You were wrong, though. lol |
Anonymous
Well, I'm not going to call out anyone for taking notes. Those hearings aren't archived and it takes months for the transcripts to be posted, so the notes were very helpful and interesting. The poster's opinion on it, you can take or leave. |
Anonymous
If it goes to a jury, the jury instructions will include a rubric that defines actual malice as either reporting known falsehoods or having reckless disregard for the truth. Could the jury decide the NYT had reckless disregard for the truth? Sure. But the jury will not be asked the question "did the NYT provide full context in reporting this story?" Because that's not the standard. Also, if the context thing comes up in trial, you can expect the NYT to present evidence showing that it's not really possible to provide "full context" in a single story. Had they not been sued by Baldoni, they could have reported out additional context as it came to light. News agencies are not required to wait until they have all context before they report out news. And the NYT will make sure the jury knows that, perhaps even down to including that as a parameter in jury instructions. The defamation standard is NOT about providing full context to every story and making sure it is being seen from all angles. It's much more limited to the truth of what is reported, and a jury will only be asked to find if what the NYT reported was (1) untrue, or (2) reckless in its approach to the truth. It's a tough standard and yes a judge will throw out a jury finding if it doesn't comport with the actual law. |
Anonymous
I totally agree with everything you said, but just to clarify, I believe team Baldoni's argument is that the NYT had the full context within the texts, prior to publication. Freedman more or less argues in one of the motions that the actual malice standard was met (I think it was as to Lively, but it could apply for any of the defendants who had the texts) because the texts themselves are the evidence that Nathan and Abel never actually did anything wrong and were just throwing out hypotheticals. I find that specious, but that's the claim as I understand it. |
Anonymous
That's a bizarre argument that doesn't make sense but I guess they are hoping they can sneak past MTDs and SJ to a jury and get some jury nullification. |
Anonymous
|
Scarlett is hosting SNL…(applause). Wondering if she’ll mock Ryan or Blake. Though I must say that she usually plays it cool.
I like that she gets a moment like this, especially after the VanZan reveal. Go Scarjo! |
Anonymous
| May 17 |
Anonymous
Of course the jury won’t be instructed on ‘full context’ - I never said that- but any good trial lawyer will remind them again and again of how their reporting fell short of their typical journalistic standards (which are very thorough and will be discussed), how Baldoni was harmed and all the other reasons people think Blake was obviously not acting in good faith (which a credible journalist should have been able to untease) etc and it will factor into how the jury views ‘reckless disregard’. It just works that way whatever the ‘technical’ law says. They’ll also likely know that the NYT has insurance coverage. And a judge will be unlikely to set aside a jury verdict if it is remotely credible. Look, you obviously don’t know this area very well. I appreciate you know defamation law 101, but you clearly don’t know the subtler nuances of how these cases tend to play out. There’s no point in arguing further bc you’ll just keep pointing to your defamation law primer. |