Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

If he’s not guilty of something, why did he spend $$ on PR to tear her apart? Or he’s just an @ss? Which is it? This thread seems like Example A of his efforts.

[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.

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.

Lively didn't bring sexual harassment allegations until December when she filed the lawsuit. Sony has denied there were any sexual harassment complaints filed to their HR. Your allegation that Justin was aware of the fact that she was going to file a sexual harassment complaint and thus hire a PR firm to discredit her specifically before it came out is literally baseless and a complete distortion of the facts and timelines of the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If he’s not guilty of something, why did he spend $$ on PR to tear her apart? Or he’s just an @ss? Which is it? This thread seems like Example A of his efforts.

Because he could see that she was setting him up. Go back to the timeline -- the 17 point list of demands, the Jennifer Abel's phone seizure, etc. You don't have to be guilty to want to defend yourself and your reputation.

Still looking for Blake to show specifics to back up her claims. Baldoni has his receipts. She needs to show hers.

[Anonymous]

If Sony is solely responsible for the marketing behind Blake's "Grab your florals" pitch, why did they not instruct Justin to do the same? Were there any messages obtained between him and Sony where they expressed direct or implicit commands to limit the discussions around domestic violence? Not understanding the dichotomy between Justin and Blake's marketing.

She was dragged for her tone deaf responses for the film and implying that Sony made her market the film that way but blaming Baldoni's team for the backlash. It doesn't make sense. The text messages don't reveal an actual coordinated plan to "bury" her. As a matter of fact, the exchanges between Melissa Nathan and Jennifer Abel actually state verbatim that the internet was doing the work for them. And as we can see months later, with real life examples through tiktok creators, mommy sleuths, youtube personalities, etc the "backlash" was organic.

As stated earlier, unless more is uncovered through discovery, she has an uphill battle to prove an orchestrated campaign was made and the burden of proof to meet the threshold of workplace sexual harassment. Especially when she went back to work without issue after her demands were met.

[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.

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.

Again, Blake needs to prove slander. You wanting it to be slander and her proving it in a court of law is the only thing that matters at the end of the day.

[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.

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.

The pretzel twist that you have to go through is something to behold. Must be exhausting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

All assumptions that will come out in court, so we’ll just have to wait and see. It’s just as possible that RR threw his weight around and did whatever he wanted to do. They’ve shown time and again the rules don’t apply to them. What we’re pointing out here is the hypocrisy. Remember Blake added Sorowitz to her complaint and said he was on set during the birthing scene. First, he’s literally the one bankrolling the film and has a right to visit the set, certainly more of a right than RR. And as it turns out, he wasn’t there during the birthing scene but later that day, another one of Blake’s many lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Lively didn't bring sexual harassment allegations until December when she filed the lawsuit. Sony has denied there were any sexual harassment complaints filed to their HR. Your allegation that Justin was aware of the fact that she was going to file a sexual harassment complaint and thus hire a PR firm to discredit her specifically before it came out is literally baseless and a complete distortion of the facts and timelines of the case.

She made multiple complaints about Baldoni's and Heath's behavior, to Wayfarer and Sony, before the hiatus. These are detailed in both their complaints. She did not go through formal channels to file a "sexual harassment complaint" because (1) she wanted to handle it less confrontationally in order to protect the production, and (2) there were structural problems that made a more formal complaint possible -- Wayfarer had inadequate HR resources and Sony, which had a more formal HR process, kept kicking things back to Wayfarer. But Lively repeatedly raised concerns about everything she alleges in her lawsuit -- Baldoni asking her trainer about her weight, the unscripted kissing in scenes, the proposed nudity in the birth scene, Heath showing her the birth video, etc. None of this came as a surprise to Baldoni or Heath when it was raised again later in the 17 point list -- they knew she was unhappy about that stuff and had had discussions with her and with Sony about it.

What Wayfarer should have done, and what a competent company would do, is involve HR as soon as it was clear Lively was raising these concerns, and create a formal process to address discomfort and prevent any future issues moving forward. That is what Sony would have done, for instance, if this happened on the set of a movie they were actually producing as the producing studio. Sony has lots of lawyers and HR professionals who would have investigated and laid out a framework for moving forward. Wayfarer blew it off, figured Blake would get over it, and made no changes to their operations. And then during the hiatus when Blake became so stressed about returning to set and having to film all her intimate scenes with people who had repeatedly blown off her concerns specifically about how they handled intimacy and nudity on set, she essentially forced Wayfarer to do what they should have done from the jump and commit to certain protections on the set, and also forced Sony to get more involved to protect the production and actors.

To say that's not a "credibly SH allegation" is bizarre to me. You can't avoid a credible allegation by just refusing to take an employee's *repeated* complaints about behavior related to sex and gender in the workplace seriously. And it wasn't even just Blake! At least one other actress on the set vocally complained about gendered or sexist comments by Heath. So you have what appears to be a pattern of behavior that is making multiple women on the set uncomfortable to the point of raising concerns with Sony or directly with Heath and Baldoni, and Wayfarer at no point initiated an HR investigation into the incidents to try and address the issues. In fact, Wayfarer didn't initiate an investigation until 2025, when they hired a law firm to conduct an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment on the set of the movie, likely because they knew the total absence of any action by the company to look into these allegations looks really, really bad for their defense against Blake's claims.

The idea that Baldoni and Wayfarer didn't know about the SH allegations until Blake filed her lawsuit is ludicrous. They not only knew, there are multiple texts between Baldoni and Abel where he expresses concern about the allegations being made public. There are even texts between Abel and others where she expresses concern about how the allegations could affect Baldoni's reputation or the film. These texts date as far back as January 2024 when the movie was still in production. They knew. They knew and did nothing to address it, but gosh they sure were busy little bees when it came to making sure no one would believe Blake if she came forward, by trashing her rep online via TAG and JW.

[Anonymous]

I’m not sure where pro-Baldoners new obsession with slander is coming from besides a new commentator grifting off the case I guess, but “slander” doesn’t appear anywhere in Lively’s original or first amended complaint. She charges sexual harassment, retaliation, failure to investigate and/or remedy harassment, aiding and abetting harassment and retaliation, breach of contract, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, false light invasion of privacy, defamation, and civil conspiracy. There is no claim of slander in here.

I also think you don’t know what you’re talking about or even understand what slander is, or the difference between slander, libel, and defamation. So good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Can someone give a brief summary of the issue and this thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

All assumptions that will come out in court, so we’ll just have to wait and see. It’s just as possible that RR threw his weight around and did whatever he wanted to do. They’ve shown time and again the rules don’t apply to them. What we’re pointing out here is the hypocrisy. Remember Blake added Sorowitz to her complaint and said he was on set during the birthing scene. First, he’s literally the one bankrolling the film and has a right to visit the set, certainly more of a right than RR. And as it turns out, he wasn’t there during the birthing scene but later that day, another one of Blake’s many lies.

She didn't lie -- he was on set that day, it was his first day on the set of the movie, and Blake found it to be an odd coincidence that he would show up to the set for the first time on the day where Heath and Baldoni tried to force her to do a scene that was not scripted as a nude scene, nude. That is what she alleged and that is all true. Wayfarer has replied he didn't show up until later in the day, which yes, would make the alleged coincidence moot, which is why they drop it from their amended complaint. But her complaint simply stated the truth as she knew it from her perspective and there were no lies there. She is not lying when she says that it bothered her to find out that Sorowitz was coming to set on the same day that she was being pressured to do unscripted nudity. That's her subjective experience, even if her understanding about why he was coming to set may have been false. It also doesn't change the fact that she was pressured to do unscripted nudity, something Baldoni's complaints have not even denied (they have only stated that ultimately she had a hospital gown over her top have and was wearing underwear in the scene, which Baldoni calls "full clothed" and Livley calls "simulated partial nudity").

No lies detected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Lively didn't bring sexual harassment allegations until December when she filed the lawsuit. Sony has denied there were any sexual harassment complaints filed to their HR. Your allegation that Justin was aware of the fact that she was going to file a sexual harassment complaint and thus hire a PR firm to discredit her specifically before it came out is literally baseless and a complete distortion of the facts and timelines of the case.

She made multiple complaints about Baldoni's and Heath's behavior, to Wayfarer and Sony, before the hiatus. These are detailed in both their complaints. She did not go through formal channels to file a "sexual harassment complaint" because (1) she wanted to handle it less confrontationally in order to protect the production, and (2) there were structural problems that made a more formal complaint possible -- Wayfarer had inadequate HR resources and Sony, which had a more formal HR process, kept kicking things back to Wayfarer. But Lively repeatedly raised concerns about everything she alleges in her lawsuit -- Baldoni asking her trainer about her weight, the unscripted kissing in scenes, the proposed nudity in the birth scene, Heath showing her the birth video, etc. None of this came as a surprise to Baldoni or Heath when it was raised again later in the 17 point list -- they knew she was unhappy about that stuff and had had discussions with her and with Sony about it.

What Wayfarer should have done, and what a competent company would do, is involve HR as soon as it was clear Lively was raising these concerns, and create a formal process to address discomfort and prevent any future issues moving forward. That is what Sony would have done, for instance, if this happened on the set of a movie they were actually producing as the producing studio. Sony has lots of lawyers and HR professionals who would have investigated and laid out a framework for moving forward. Wayfarer blew it off, figured Blake would get over it, and made no changes to their operations. And then during the hiatus when Blake became so stressed about returning to set and having to film all her intimate scenes with people who had repeatedly blown off her concerns specifically about how they handled intimacy and nudity on set, she essentially forced Wayfarer to do what they should have done from the jump and commit to certain protections on the set, and also forced Sony to get more involved to protect the production and actors.

To say that's not a "credibly SH allegation" is bizarre to me. You can't avoid a credible allegation by just refusing to take an employee's *repeated* complaints about behavior related to sex and gender in the workplace seriously. And it wasn't even just Blake! At least one other actress on the set vocally complained about gendered or sexist comments by Heath. So you have what appears to be a pattern of behavior that is making multiple women on the set uncomfortable to the point of raising concerns with Sony or directly with Heath and Baldoni, and Wayfarer at no point initiated an HR investigation into the incidents to try and address the issues. In fact, Wayfarer didn't initiate an investigation until 2025, when they hired a law firm to conduct an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment on the set of the movie, likely because they knew the total absence of any action by the company to look into these allegations looks really, really bad for their defense against Blake's claims.

The idea that Baldoni and Wayfarer didn't know about the SH allegations until Blake filed her lawsuit is ludicrous. They not only knew, there are multiple texts between Baldoni and Abel where he expresses concern about the allegations being made public. There are even texts between Abel and others where she expresses concern about how the allegations could affect Baldoni's reputation or the film. These texts date as far back as January 2024 when the movie was still in production. They knew. They knew and did nothing to address it, but gosh they sure were busy little bees when it came to making sure no one would believe Blake if she came forward, by trashing her rep online via TAG and JW.

Yes! Hard agree with all of this! And the fact that Wayfarer’s nearly non existent HR department (the same HR department that previously inspired a lawsuit for discrimination and retaliation by a black employee that worked on Baldini’s podcast) didn’t start investigating Lively’s complaints until after this lawsuit was filed is *chef’s kiss*.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

The pretzel twist that you have to go through is something to behold. Must be exhausting.

It's funny how every time someone presents a compelling, logical argument against Baldoni, laid out clearly, you call it "a pretzel twist."

It feels like a pretzel to you because you can't deal with the idea that maybe you are wrong. You are the one feeling twisted by the way facts are inconvenient to your beliefs about this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Lively didn't bring sexual harassment allegations until December when she filed the lawsuit. Sony has denied there were any sexual harassment complaints filed to their HR. Your allegation that Justin was aware of the fact that she was going to file a sexual harassment complaint and thus hire a PR firm to discredit her specifically before it came out is literally baseless and a complete distortion of the facts and timelines of the case.

She made multiple complaints about Baldoni's and Heath's behavior, to Wayfarer and Sony, before the hiatus. These are detailed in both their complaints. She did not go through formal channels to file a "sexual harassment complaint" because (1) she wanted to handle it less confrontationally in order to protect the production, and (2) there were structural problems that made a more formal complaint possible -- Wayfarer had inadequate HR resources and Sony, which had a more formal HR process, kept kicking things back to Wayfarer. But Lively repeatedly raised concerns about everything she alleges in her lawsuit -- Baldoni asking her trainer about her weight, the unscripted kissing in scenes, the proposed nudity in the birth scene, Heath showing her the birth video, etc. None of this came as a surprise to Baldoni or Heath when it was raised again later in the 17 point list -- they knew she was unhappy about that stuff and had had discussions with her and with Sony about it.

What Wayfarer should have done, and what a competent company would do, is involve HR as soon as it was clear Lively was raising these concerns, and create a formal process to address discomfort and prevent any future issues moving forward. That is what Sony would have done, for instance, if this happened on the set of a movie they were actually producing as the producing studio. Sony has lots of lawyers and HR professionals who would have investigated and laid out a framework for moving forward. Wayfarer blew it off, figured Blake would get over it, and made no changes to their operations. And then during the hiatus when Blake became so stressed about returning to set and having to film all her intimate scenes with people who had repeatedly blown off her concerns specifically about how they handled intimacy and nudity on set, she essentially forced Wayfarer to do what they should have done from the jump and commit to certain protections on the set, and also forced Sony to get more involved to protect the production and actors.

To say that's not a "credibly SH allegation" is bizarre to me. You can't avoid a credible allegation by just refusing to take an employee's *repeated* complaints about behavior related to sex and gender in the workplace seriously. And it wasn't even just Blake! At least one other actress on the set vocally complained about gendered or sexist comments by Heath. So you have what appears to be a pattern of behavior that is making multiple women on the set uncomfortable to the point of raising concerns with Sony or directly with Heath and Baldoni, and Wayfarer at no point initiated an HR investigation into the incidents to try and address the issues. In fact, Wayfarer didn't initiate an investigation until 2025, when they hired a law firm to conduct an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment on the set of the movie, likely because they knew the total absence of any action by the company to look into these allegations looks really, really bad for their defense against Blake's claims.

The idea that Baldoni and Wayfarer didn't know about the SH allegations until Blake filed her lawsuit is ludicrous. They not only knew, there are multiple texts between Baldoni and Abel where he expresses concern about the allegations being made public. There are even texts between Abel and others where she expresses concern about how the allegations could affect Baldoni's reputation or the film. These texts date as far back as January 2024 when the movie was still in production. They knew. They knew and did nothing to address it, but gosh they sure were busy little bees when it came to making sure no one would believe Blake if she came forward, by trashing her rep online via TAG and JW.

Yes! Hard agree with all of this! And the fact that Wayfarer’s nearly non existent HR department (the same HR department that previously inspired a lawsuit for discrimination and retaliation by a black employee that worked on Baldini’s podcast) didn’t start investigating Lively’s complaints until after this lawsuit was filed is *chef’s kiss*.

The HR department isn't even investigating it! They hired a law firm to conduct the investigation because they lack sufficient internal resources to do so. But yeah, the fact that they initiated the investigation in early 2025 after lawsuits had been filed is amazing. Blatant CYA that will not work because... come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

All assumptions that will come out in court, so we’ll just have to wait and see. It’s just as possible that RR threw his weight around and did whatever he wanted to do. They’ve shown time and again the rules don’t apply to them. What we’re pointing out here is the hypocrisy. Remember Blake added Sorowitz to her complaint and said he was on set during the birthing scene. First, he’s literally the one bankrolling the film and has a right to visit the set, certainly more of a right than RR. And as it turns out, he wasn’t there during the birthing scene but later that day, another one of Blake’s many lies.

She didn't lie -- he was on set that day, it was his first day on the set of the movie, and Blake found it to be an odd coincidence that he would show up to the set for the first time on the day where Heath and Baldoni tried to force her to do a scene that was not scripted as a nude scene, nude. That is what she alleged and that is all true. Wayfarer has replied he didn't show up until later in the day, which yes, would make the alleged coincidence moot, which is why they drop it from their amended complaint. But her complaint simply stated the truth as she knew it from her perspective and there were no lies there. She is not lying when she says that it bothered her to find out that Sorowitz was coming to set on the same day that she was being pressured to do unscripted nudity. That's her subjective experience, even if her understanding about why he was coming to set may have been false. It also doesn't change the fact that she was pressured to do unscripted nudity, something Baldoni's complaints have not even denied (they have only stated that ultimately she had a hospital gown over her top have and was wearing underwear in the scene, which Baldoni calls "full clothed" and Livley calls "simulated partial nudity").

No lies detected.

Oh no, the alternative facts poster is back…