Reply to Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][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]

Do you have a gut feeling on how this will shake out?

There are other avenues for Liman to dismiss the defamation claims as to Lively, if he's so inclined. As far as I can recall, almost all of the defamatory comments from Lively are sourced from the CRD, so they could be covered by the litigation privilege. He could accept Lively's argument that since she has a litigation privilege and NYT has Fair Report, her communications with the NY Times should also be covered as the go-between. And I don't think they referenced any comments she made otherwise, although they might dig up some texts in discovery.

Alternatively, if he does not want to dismiss the defamation claims, he could say that Baldoni has pled enough facts to allege that her complaint was made "with malice," and therefore does not fit within the California law. This seems to be the safest bet if he doesn't want to dip his toes into constitutionality or the merits of the law. It would support the idea that the law has provisions to protect falsely accused persons.

Will be fun to see if whoever loses that particular battle appeals and how that goes.

[/quote]

Op. I think he will focus on malice and avoid the constitutional issue [/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