Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I have said before, BL and RR cannot lay low. In Canada, we are now I inundated with Ryan Reynolds’s breakfast box at Tim Horton’s.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJRdRQdNW75/?igsh=endzMHhuMDNoZXRo

It’s funny. See, my whole identity hasn’t become consumed by the Baldoni cult — I think it seems like Baldoni did wrong and then tried to do a smear. So for me, it’s funny. That’s how humor works, fwiw.

What are you talking about? I couldn’t care less for either sides. I am tired of pages after pages of this stupid Hollywood story. You guys are all nuts.

[Anonymous]

Here’s another lawyer commentator that had the same silencing issue with her TikTok discussing the VanZan subpoena

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s another lawyer commentator that had the same silencing issue with her TikTok discussing the VanZan subpoena

Forgot to attach. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP866aWha/

[Anonymous]

We’re going in circles. Just let the jury decide. I think most people look at BL’s complaint and think that even if it’s all true (which Baldoni has shown it’s not) it’s just not SH.

None of her claims independently rise to the level of SH so she needs to show a pattern. And the problem with that is she also needs to show it wasn’t mutual, which she won’t be able to do because she participated in and even initiated a lot of the conversations she now wants to call SH. Ball buster, never with teeth, sucking baldonis lip, improvising kissing in other scenes, bringing up porn and how she’s never seen it.

RR also used to show up to set and watch them filming intimate scenes on the monitor. Presumably it was supposed to be a closed set. Did RR get permission to be there? How did Baldoni feel that RR was watching him filming intimate scenes? Did anyone ask Justin or even care? The crew said they found this to be extremely weird and uncomfortable but SH in their minds only goes one way.

And on top of the sexual talk, there are multiple instances of BL and RR threatening and intimidating Baldoni. Talking about dragons, calling work meetings at their home, screaming at Baldoni. If the roles were reversed, all of these things would be in Blake’s complaint.

No reasonable jury will find in her favor with these facts. Her best chance is a settlement or some sort of summary judgment where she gets off on a technicality.

[Anonymous]

I agree that a lot of things that Blake did would be in the complaint if Baldoni did them. I have not heard about RR watching the love scenes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We’re going in circles. Just let the jury decide. I think most people look at BL’s complaint and think that even if it’s all true (which Baldoni has shown it’s not) it’s just not SH.

None of her claims independently rise to the level of SH so she needs to show a pattern. And the problem with that is she also needs to show it wasn’t mutual, which she won’t be able to do because she participated in and even initiated a lot of the conversations she now wants to call SH. Ball buster, never with teeth, sucking baldonis lip, improvising kissing in other scenes, bringing up porn and how she’s never seen it.

RR also used to show up to set and watch them filming intimate scenes on the monitor. Presumably it was supposed to be a closed set. Did RR get permission to be there? How did Baldoni feel that RR was watching him filming intimate scenes? Did anyone ask Justin or even care? The crew said they found this to be extremely weird and uncomfortable but SH in their minds only goes one way.

And on top of the sexual talk, there are multiple instances of BL and RR threatening and intimidating Baldoni. Talking about dragons, calling work meetings at their home, screaming at Baldoni. If the roles were reversed, all of these things would be in Blake’s complaint.

No reasonable jury will find in her favor with these facts. Her best chance is a settlement or some sort of summary judgment where she gets off on a technicality.

For some reason, I have an intuitive feeling that she's gonna wait until the last minute, just before the trial begins, to negotiate a settlement. I could be wrong but I feel like that's going to be the power play. Like you, I just don't see the evidence she has (as of yet) that meets the threshold for workplace sexual harassment that'll move the needle. When they do cross examination, it's gonna be a bloodbath. Having to recall particular dates and exact quotes and answer why she said no teeth, why she invited him in her trailer, why she invited him on her private jet with her kids, etc. And we haven't even found out if this will be televised.

Examining her personality, I don't think she's going to put herself or her friends through this. I think she wants him to buckle and settle with her. When she realizes he's not gonna bite, a week before the trial, she's gonna capitulate and use the mental health and post-partum excuse and reveal some disorder she has and issue an apology. If you remember, her and Ryan filed a protective order to keep their text with high profilers confidential fearing Lively's "profound mental health" issues would be leaked. This is the spin she's going to use.

[Anonymous]

And the problem with that is she also needs to show it wasn’t mutual, which she won’t be able to do because she participated in and even initiated a lot of the conversations she now wants to call SH

Guess what? Her calling herself a ball buster doesn’t mean he didn’t sexually harass her. Your weird addition to the order of proof for sexual harassment — proving it “wasn’t mutual” — that isn’t a thing, but if it were I’m pretty sure she can show she wasn’t on board with with being nude for the birth scene or the additional sex scenes he wanted to film of her climaxing etc. Nor does her calling herself a “ball buster” mean he didn’t run a smear campaign against her. And his texts basically admit the smear campaign. His texts are like, hey guys, shouldn’t we be smearing a little harder? And are we sure we’re smearing her in a way where we won’t get caught?

So your boy may still have some problems, not least of which is getting his own MIA amended complaint approved in a way where the claims stick because the judge has indicated that as written there are enormous problems with it, and moreover his biggest fish worth the most in his potential recovery, the NYT, may swim away entirely.

We’ll see what happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And the problem with that is she also needs to show it wasn’t mutual, which she won’t be able to do because she participated in and even initiated a lot of the conversations she now wants to call SH

Guess what? Her calling herself a ball buster doesn’t mean he didn’t sexually harass her. Your weird addition to the order of proof for sexual harassment — proving it “wasn’t mutual” — that isn’t a thing, but if it were I’m pretty sure she can show she wasn’t on board with with being nude for the birth scene or the additional sex scenes he wanted to film of her climaxing etc. Nor does her calling herself a “ball buster” mean he didn’t run a smear campaign against her. And his texts basically admit the smear campaign. His texts are like, hey guys, shouldn’t we be smearing a little harder? And are we sure we’re smearing her in a way where we won’t get caught?

So your boy may still have some problems, not least of which is getting his own MIA amended complaint approved in a way where the claims stick because the judge has indicated that as written there are enormous problems with it, and moreover his biggest fish worth the most in his potential recovery, the NYT, may swim away entirely.

We’ll see what happens.

But how is a director, wanting her to have a scene where she is climaxing in a PG-13 movement sexual harassment?! I saw the movie, she doesn’t climax, so she gets her way, but simply asking her to do that is not sexual harassment. It’s absolutely ridiculous to say otherwise. Just like him sharing his vision of the birth scene is not sexual harassment. It’s actually his job as a director. We all know Blake wanted to produce and direct this movie, but no one is hiring her to do that.

If she did not want to be in a scene where they discussed things of a sexual nature she shouldn’t be doing a damn love story. She knew what she was signing up for, she admits herself she has profound mental health issues she does not want leaked to the public, and she’s taking them out on Baldoni. We all see it.

And as another poster said above, she and Ryan did so many questionable things to baldoni but again it only goes one way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And the problem with that is she also needs to show it wasn’t mutual, which she won’t be able to do because she participated in and even initiated a lot of the conversations she now wants to call SH

Guess what? Her calling herself a ball buster doesn’t mean he didn’t sexually harass her. Your weird addition to the order of proof for sexual harassment — proving it “wasn’t mutual” — that isn’t a thing, but if it were I’m pretty sure she can show she wasn’t on board with with being nude for the birth scene or the additional sex scenes he wanted to film of her climaxing etc. Nor does her calling herself a “ball buster” mean he didn’t run a smear campaign against her. And his texts basically admit the smear campaign. His texts are like, hey guys, shouldn’t we be smearing a little harder? And are we sure we’re smearing her in a way where we won’t get caught?

So your boy may still have some problems, not least of which is getting his own MIA amended complaint approved in a way where the claims stick because the judge has indicated that as written there are enormous problems with it, and moreover his biggest fish worth the most in his potential recovery, the NYT, may swim away entirely.

We’ll see what happens.

You’re wrong about this. The employment lawyer Ron Zambrano talked about this several weeks ago on popcorned planet. Part of sexual harassment is proving the behavior was unwanted which is hard to do if you’re participating in the banter. Think about it this way, Blake herself has dated many coworkers and even married one. I’m sure there were things on the set of gossip girl, the town and green lantern that to an outside observer could be considered SH. What made it not SH is that it was mutual/not unwanted behavior. Blake’s behavior on that set crossed all the same boundaries she claims Baldoni did. For example, she said she didn’t want a scene to look like porn, but she didn’t stop there (at the creative discussion about the scene) but rather she then focused the conversation on herself and how she’d never seen it. For Baldoni to then respond “that’s great because as a teen I was addicted it to it and think it’s really bad for society” is not SH, it’s walking through the door she’d already opened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the problem with that is she also needs to show it wasn’t mutual, which she won’t be able to do because she participated in and even initiated a lot of the conversations she now wants to call SH

Guess what? Her calling herself a ball buster doesn’t mean he didn’t sexually harass her. Your weird addition to the order of proof for sexual harassment — proving it “wasn’t mutual” — that isn’t a thing, but if it were I’m pretty sure she can show she wasn’t on board with with being nude for the birth scene or the additional sex scenes he wanted to film of her climaxing etc. Nor does her calling herself a “ball buster” mean he didn’t run a smear campaign against her. And his texts basically admit the smear campaign. His texts are like, hey guys, shouldn’t we be smearing a little harder? And are we sure we’re smearing her in a way where we won’t get caught?

So your boy may still have some problems, not least of which is getting his own MIA amended complaint approved in a way where the claims stick because the judge has indicated that as written there are enormous problems with it, and moreover his biggest fish worth the most in his potential recovery, the NYT, may swim away entirely.

We’ll see what happens.

You’re wrong about this. The employment lawyer Ron Zambrano talked about this several weeks ago on popcorned planet. Part of sexual harassment is proving the behavior was unwanted which is hard to do if you’re participating in the banter. Think about it this way, Blake herself has dated many coworkers and even married one. I’m sure there were things on the set of gossip girl, the town and green lantern that to an outside observer could be considered SH. What made it not SH is that it was mutual/not unwanted behavior. Blake’s behavior on that set crossed all the same boundaries she claims Baldoni did. For example, she said she didn’t want a scene to look like porn, but she didn’t stop there (at the creative discussion about the scene) but rather she then focused the conversation on herself and how she’d never seen it. For Baldoni to then respond “that’s great because as a teen I was addicted it to it and think it’s really bad for society” is not SH, it’s walking through the door she’d already opened.

Further, you don’t even have to go to her previous films. There’s plenty of evidence of banter in the text exchanges that Justin and Blake had. And evidence that she improvised intimate scenes as well on the set of this film, I’ve seen footage of her, grabbing him and pulling him toward her, and it was not in the script, and evidence that she bit his lip unscripted and as others have pointed out evidence that she violated other casting crew members rights by having Ryan, who had no role in the film, watching every scene. It’s just very hypocritical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And the problem with that is she also needs to show it wasn’t mutual, which she won’t be able to do because she participated in and even initiated a lot of the conversations she now wants to call SH

Guess what? Her calling herself a ball buster doesn’t mean he didn’t sexually harass her. Your weird addition to the order of proof for sexual harassment — proving it “wasn’t mutual” — that isn’t a thing, but if it were I’m pretty sure she can show she wasn’t on board with with being nude for the birth scene or the additional sex scenes he wanted to film of her climaxing etc. Nor does her calling herself a “ball buster” mean he didn’t run a smear campaign against her. And his texts basically admit the smear campaign. His texts are like, hey guys, shouldn’t we be smearing a little harder? And are we sure we’re smearing her in a way where we won’t get caught?

So your boy may still have some problems, not least of which is getting his own MIA amended complaint approved in a way where the claims stick because the judge has indicated that as written there are enormous problems with it, and moreover his biggest fish worth the most in his potential recovery, the NYT, may swim away entirely.

We’ll see what happens.

This is how we can tell you didn't read the exculpatory evidence because otherwise you would have known the full context of text messages were omitted from the NYT article and Justin had actually texted his PR team he didn't want to slander her. None of know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the problem with that is she also needs to show it wasn’t mutual, which she won’t be able to do because she participated in and even initiated a lot of the conversations she now wants to call SH

Guess what? Her calling herself a ball buster doesn’t mean he didn’t sexually harass her. Your weird addition to the order of proof for sexual harassment — proving it “wasn’t mutual” — that isn’t a thing, but if it were I’m pretty sure she can show she wasn’t on board with with being nude for the birth scene or the additional sex scenes he wanted to film of her climaxing etc. Nor does her calling herself a “ball buster” mean he didn’t run a smear campaign against her. And his texts basically admit the smear campaign. His texts are like, hey guys, shouldn’t we be smearing a little harder? And are we sure we’re smearing her in a way where we won’t get caught?

So your boy may still have some problems, not least of which is getting his own MIA amended complaint approved in a way where the claims stick because the judge has indicated that as written there are enormous problems with it, and moreover his biggest fish worth the most in his potential recovery, the NYT, may swim away entirely.

We’ll see what happens.

You’re wrong about this. The employment lawyer Ron Zambrano talked about this several weeks ago on popcorned planet. Part of sexual harassment is proving the behavior was unwanted which is hard to do if you’re participating in the banter. Think about it this way, Blake herself has dated many coworkers and even married one. I’m sure there were things on the set of gossip girl, the town and green lantern that to an outside observer could be considered SH. What made it not SH is that it was mutual/not unwanted behavior. Blake’s behavior on that set crossed all the same boundaries she claims Baldoni did. For example, she said she didn’t want a scene to look like porn, but she didn’t stop there (at the creative discussion about the scene) but rather she then focused the conversation on herself and how she’d never seen it. For Baldoni to then respond “that’s great because as a teen I was addicted it to it and think it’s really bad for society” is not SH, it’s walking through the door she’d already opened.

Further, you don’t even have to go to her previous films. There’s plenty of evidence of banter in the text exchanges that Justin and Blake had. And evidence that she improvised intimate scenes as well on the set of this film, I’ve seen footage of her, grabbing him and pulling him toward her, and it was not in the script, and evidence that she bit his lip unscripted and as others have pointed out evidence that she violated other casting crew members rights by having Ryan, who had no role in the film, watching every scene. It’s just very hypocritical.

Not to mention we have admission from Colleen herself and the Access Hollywood interviewer who said they both saw the clips of her directing Justin and teaching him to physically pull him into her. Does this sound like a woman who was sexually harassed and intimidated?

[Anonymous]

Article discussing the misogyny slip ecosystem in more detail: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/may/06/misogyny-slop-it-ends-with-us-america-rightwing-blake-lively-justin-baldoni

[Anonymous]

The love scenes were all filmed after the hiatus and the 17 point list. So after Blake had complained repeatedly and gotten them to agree to having an IC on set whenever Blake interacted with Baldoni. So that means the IC okayed Ryan's presence during those scenes, and also could have spoken up if they thought it was inappropriate or if Baldoni expressed discomfort with it.

I don't see what is harassing about him being there, in any case. Intimate scenes are not sexy or titillating to film (or shouldn't be, though reportedly Baldoni was titillated by the sex scene he filmed of the young Lily and Atlas and expressed that to the actors). So having one of the actor's SO there doesn't seem like it should matter.

Emily Baldoni was also on set frequently, including days she was not filming her scene from the movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the problem with that is she also needs to show it wasn’t mutual, which she won’t be able to do because she participated in and even initiated a lot of the conversations she now wants to call SH

Guess what? Her calling herself a ball buster doesn’t mean he didn’t sexually harass her. Your weird addition to the order of proof for sexual harassment — proving it “wasn’t mutual” — that isn’t a thing, but if it were I’m pretty sure she can show she wasn’t on board with with being nude for the birth scene or the additional sex scenes he wanted to film of her climaxing etc. Nor does her calling herself a “ball buster” mean he didn’t run a smear campaign against her. And his texts basically admit the smear campaign. His texts are like, hey guys, shouldn’t we be smearing a little harder? And are we sure we’re smearing her in a way where we won’t get caught?

So your boy may still have some problems, not least of which is getting his own MIA amended complaint approved in a way where the claims stick because the judge has indicated that as written there are enormous problems with it, and moreover his biggest fish worth the most in his potential recovery, the NYT, may swim away entirely.

We’ll see what happens.

This is how we can tell you didn't read the exculpatory evidence because otherwise you would have known the full context of text messages were omitted from the NYT article and Justin had actually texted his PR team he didn't want to slander her. None of know what you're talking about.

Saying he didn't want to slander her is not exculpatory. He isn't accused of slander -- he's accused of a retaliatory PR campaign. Even if everything they posted online was true or couched as opinion (so not slander), by spreading negative publicity about an employee who had brought credible SH allegations, they were engaging in retaliatory behavior. Especially when there are a number of texts where Justin makes it clear the goal of the campaign is to discredit Lively should she speak publicly about her allegations.

The analogous non-Hollywood situation is that Pan accuses her boss Michael at the paper company of SH and through Toby and some folks from Dundee Mifflin corporate, they agree privately to a list of rules to prevent it going forward. But Pam refuses to attend company events if Michael is there. This enrages Michael, so he starts spreading rumors in Scranton about Pam. The rumors are true but embarrassing for Pam (she was engaged to one coworker before dumping him for another, she has artistic aspirations but her art is full and inspired, she flunked classes in her art program in NY) and have a negative impact on her reputation in town.

If Michael later says "when I was spreading nasty rumors about Pam around town, I made sure to only spread true, but embarrassing, stories. I didn't slander her," this doesn't prove his innocence but actually demonstrates the deliberation with which he was trying to ruin her reputation.