Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]And more: [url]https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2025-05-27/blake-lively-support-advocacy-groups-justin-baldoni-defamation-battle[/url] "Asked about the briefs, a spokesperson for Lively said in a statement that Baldoni was “trying to end the nation’s only ‘MeToo’ law as ‘unconstitutional’” and accused him and his co-defendants of being “so focused on trying to harm Ms. Lively that they are willing to shred a law designed to protect all victims just to make sure they ‘bury’ one.’” The statement added that Lively 'will continue to use her voice to speak up for justice on behalf of herself and others.' ... "[Freedman and Baldoni's] position drew a sharp response from Victoria Burke, an attorney who helped push for AB 933 and is now leading efforts to pass similar legislation in 16 other states. “I was highly disappointed with that move,” said Burke, who is filing her own amicus brief in the case. “He’s put himself out there as a feminist, and this undoes a lot of the good he had been doing. It just seemed cruel and unnecessary — to try to destroy a law that was designed to protect all survivors, just to go after one.” [/quote] Dp. I posted before about well meaning laws posted by activists. I happen to know one of the orgs quoted here fairly well. I am pro Baldoni and someone who would likely be called a ‘feminist lawyer’ in real life… I work on gender issues and there are so many laws that started off trying to protect women, victims etc but end up being too broad, vague, etc and ultimately harmful. Happens all the time. I can see this CA law being well meaning but ultimately not well drafted [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics