Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And like I shared, Blake needs to produce some facts to support her claims. She has not produced one discernible and indisputable fact supporting her allegations against Justin. Not one.

So that’s why I claim no harassment. If she’s going to call it, she needs to produce facts. The law punishes and exonerates based on facts.

She's in the middle of discovery, that's when evidence is produced, to the court. Including, say, testimony of eye witnesses, which will be critical in this case. It is bizarre, IMO, to decide she must be lying because she has not produced "facts" to the tabloids when they are in the middle of the discovery process and you haven't even seen interrogatory responses or depositions from key parties, including Lively or Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And I’ll add this much. The bar for harassment tends to be lower in the mind of some females than others. That is why the courts provide a reasonableness standard. Would a reasonable person believe that the incidences which Blake has alleged (and Justin has countered with solid, irrefutable evidence) to be harassment? That’s the foundation of the standard involved. Most people are going to say “no”, especially given the lack of and none existence of evidence to corroborate Blake’s allegations.

So no, no harassment proven yet.

The phrase "some females" makes you sound like an incel. Not saying you are, just letting you know how that language is coded online.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And like I shared, Blake needs to produce some facts to support her claims. She has not produced one discernible and indisputable fact supporting her allegations against Justin. Not one.

So that’s why I claim no harassment. If she’s going to call it, she needs to produce facts. The law punishes and exonerates based on facts.

She's in the middle of discovery, that's when evidence is produced, to the court. Including, say, testimony of eye witnesses, which will be critical in this case. It is bizarre, IMO, to decide she must be lying because she has not produced "facts" to the tabloids when they are in the middle of the discovery process and you haven't even seen interrogatory responses or depositions from key parties, including Lively or Baldoni.

Now that’s a law 101 answer for you. Again, let’s see how these MTDs turn out. I guarantee that more evidence to support her claims won’t be produced. If it hasn’t surface already when it could stay her MTD, chances are slim that more or better evidence will surface.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And I’ll add this much. The bar for harassment tends to be lower in the mind of some females than others. That is why the courts provide a reasonableness standard. Would a reasonable person believe that the incidences which Blake has alleged (and Justin has countered with solid, irrefutable evidence) to be harassment? That’s the foundation of the standard involved. Most people are going to say “no”, especially given the lack of and none existence of evidence to corroborate Blake’s allegations.

So no, no harassment proven yet.

The phrase "some females" makes you sound like an incel. Not saying you are, just letting you know how that language is coded online.

oops- my bad. But some people .are more sensitive than others. There. I clean it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You've written 5 of the last 8 posts, and a lot of what you're writing is not "facts" or "truth" but stuff you have taken a position on in your own head. Maybe stop for a breather and take a little mental health check?

Once again, I think you are confusing posters. I guess a few of us feel the same way.

I read the anti-Lively posts on this page (13:50 (nothing rises to SA); 13:59 ("Again, Blake was not harassed."); 14:06 ("Again, more fiction."); 14:15 (messed up formatting; "bs. Her claims are not credible."); 14:29 ("That's not what I said at all.")) as all being from the same poster, responding to two different "this could be SH" posters. Sorry if that was wrong, that would seem like less of a mental crisis if it involved multiple people.

You are incorrect. There are a few of us that have responded. Sorry to upend your detective skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the text of her speech. Well, we can definitely say she's leaning into MeToo.

https://time.com/collections/time100-summit-gala-2025/7279196/time100-gala-blake-lively-speech/

She's not "leaning into MeToo." It's the whole thing. Her lawsuit is a MeToo lawsuit. Her narrative is a MeToo narrative. Whether you believe her or not, it's not like she's wavered on this. From the start, this has been framed by Lively as her standing up to people who she claims harass and oppress women. It's not a shift in tone, we just haven't heard her speak in public since the lawsuit was filed.

I guess you're right, but it seems OTT as someone who thinks she has a weak SH claim but a reasonable retaliation claim. And also, because the original time article mentioned her donating to NAACP but her whole speech is MeToo. But I guess this is really the only card to play. It also mitigates some of the criticism that she's suffered no damages because she's out and about at these galas. She can play it that she's bring brave. I can see it backfiring for her online bigtime.

DP. I defend Lively on here so (no surprise) I liked this speech and found it moving. Of course you would find it over the top, even if she was pointing the spotlight on her mother as a survivor of harassment rather than herself (unlike Baldoni who films himself giving things to homeless people and makes an hour long video where he is the main character in a performative play about proposing to his wife that he then films her reaction to watching *gag*, but whatever).

I didn’t like the speech b/c she’s basically saying her mother was assaulted by a coworker and likens that to her own situation. However, even if you believe Blake’s incredibly weak SH claims, they are not assault. She’s intentionally trying to cast JB in a false light here (again) putting him on the same level with predators for asking her weight and using the word sexy. It’s really quite disgusting. She just exudes white woman privilege and seems incredibly entitled and delusional.

I defended her on here in the past but ur 100%. She's delusional for that speech and needs to fire her PR team

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You've written 5 of the last 8 posts, and a lot of what you're writing is not "facts" or "truth" but stuff you have taken a position on in your own head. Maybe stop for a breather and take a little mental health check?

Once again, I think you are confusing posters. I guess a few of us feel the same way.

I read the anti-Lively posts on this page (13:50 (nothing rises to SA); 13:59 ("Again, Blake was not harassed."); 14:06 ("Again, more fiction."); 14:15 (messed up formatting; "bs. Her claims are not credible."); 14:29 ("That's not what I said at all.")) as all being from the same poster, responding to two different "this could be SH" posters. Sorry if that was wrong, that would seem like less of a mental crisis if it involved multiple people.

I’m the that’s not what I said poster and I didn’t post the others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s so funny to me is as producer of this film she fully has access to all of the dailies. She could easily put out footage showing how comfortable she was during the birthing and showing arguments or whatever. She has not, and that speaks volumes. Nothing untoward ever happen and we all knew this except the two or three posters spinning their wheels on this thread, which is actually just quite sad at this point.

She is lying, the public knows it, Ryan Reynolds is wasting away from the stress. And they look liked they absolutely hated each other on the red carpet last night. He just clearly did not want to be there.

That's not true -- she asked for dailies access and didn't get it. And the film itself belongs to Wayfarer. She may have temporarily had access to all footage during the editing process, but she does not currently have access. It's generally a very limited number if people who have access to cutting room footage after release of a film. Sony probably doesn't even have access to it -- it's Wayfarer's property.

No, you are wrong. When she asked for the dailies during filming she was not yet named as a producer. At that point, she was only an executive producer, which is just a vanity title. She was named as a producer at the end, under duress.

Now that she is a full fledged producer she would have access to footage. She also gets backend as well. It basically says she has a stake at is part owner of the film.

She absolutely could release it if she wanted to, she’s not because there’s nothing in there.

Another cast member has come out and said they were present during the birth scene and nothing unusual happened and Blake did not complain, and then after that a female crew member was interviewed and said Justin was a total professional, and doesn’t think there’s anything to these claims. So far no one has corroborated Blake but multiple people have collaborated Justin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You've written 5 of the last 8 posts, and a lot of what you're writing is not "facts" or "truth" but stuff you have taken a position on in your own head. Maybe stop for a breather and take a little mental health check?

Once again, I think you are confusing posters. I guess a few of us feel the same way.

I read the anti-Lively posts on this page (13:50 (nothing rises to SA); 13:59 ("Again, Blake was not harassed."); 14:06 ("Again, more fiction."); 14:15 (messed up formatting; "bs. Her claims are not credible."); 14:29 ("That's not what I said at all.")) as all being from the same poster, responding to two different "this could be SH" posters. Sorry if that was wrong, that would seem like less of a mental crisis if it involved multiple people.

DP. Oh it was the same poster, we all recognize her at this point

[Anonymous]

No, you are wrong. When she asked for the dailies during filming she was not yet named as a producer. At that point, she was only an executive producer, which is just a vanity title. She was named as a producer at the end, under duress.

Now that she is a full fledged producer she would have access to footage. She also gets backend as well. It basically says she has a stake at is part owner of the film.

I would be surprised if she had access, considering how she totally re-wrote the allegation about the dance scene footage in her amended complaint after Baldoni published the footage. It appeared she was not aware of what was on the tape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You've written 5 of the last 8 posts, and a lot of what you're writing is not "facts" or "truth" but stuff you have taken a position on in your own head. Maybe stop for a breather and take a little mental health check?

Once again, I think you are confusing posters. I guess a few of us feel the same way.

I read the anti-Lively posts on this page (13:50 (nothing rises to SA); 13:59 ("Again, Blake was not harassed."); 14:06 ("Again, more fiction."); 14:15 (messed up formatting; "bs. Her claims are not credible."); 14:29 ("That's not what I said at all.")) as all being from the same poster, responding to two different "this could be SH" posters. Sorry if that was wrong, that would seem like less of a mental crisis if it involved multiple people.

DP. Oh it was the same poster, we all recognize her at this point

Nope. I posted one and not the others.

[Anonymous]

Interesting that she never once mentioned her mother being a survivor of sexual harassment, assault, abuse, etc (whatever she was alluding to) prior to last night. In fact, she denied ever knowing anyone who had been abused when asked during promotion for IEWU. Just like when they asked her about the rooftop scene and she claimed Ryan wrote it. Later having to backtrack and apologize to Christy Hall, the screenwriter, who stated she wrote the scene and was unaware Ryan had any writing involvement. Her cross-examination is going to be brutal.

[Anonymous]

lol is the “other cast member” who said nothing went wrong during the birth scene Justin Bakdoni’s Halai best friend, the actor who played the obstetrician? That seems totally legit!

[Anonymous]

I honestly believe that it won’t get that far. But, if it does go to trial, I agree. Cross-e will be brutal for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You've written 5 of the last 8 posts, and a lot of what you're writing is not "facts" or "truth" but stuff you have taken a position on in your own head. Maybe stop for a breather and take a little mental health check?

Once again, I think you are confusing posters. I guess a few of us feel the same way.

I read the anti-Lively posts on this page (13:50 (nothing rises to SA); 13:59 ("Again, Blake was not harassed."); 14:06 ("Again, more fiction."); 14:15 (messed up formatting; "bs. Her claims are not credible."); 14:29 ("That's not what I said at all.")) as all being from the same poster, responding to two different "this could be SH" posters. Sorry if that was wrong, that would seem like less of a mental crisis if it involved multiple people.

I am 13:59 and 14:06. And I stand by what I wrote.