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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]So above a Baldoni fan is torching Elyse Dorsey, and on LinkedIn people are sending her hateful invective via their comments. This is the treatment that Bryan Freedman and male feminist Justin Baldoni think is appropriate for survivors like Elyse Dorsey to receive.

I’ll say it again:  You guys are the worst.[/quote]

I’m not Baldoni or Freedman, or even male.  Nor am I the person who posted the WSj article.  No question Wright should have been fired by George Mason for having affairs with students.  But Dorsey had a consensual relationship with him for years afterwards, and he got her several jobs, including hiring her to work for him at the FTC.  That isn’t harassment, that’s a relationship, and honestly, gross on both sides.  Who relies on their married lover to get them professional positions?

As a lawyer, I can’t relate to her story at all.  She made choices over years to stay in his orbit.  It is all so odd.[/quote]

So clearly it is right for him to sue her for defamation when she reports the facts of his affair with her as a student at the law school. Because these men need to be protected. And she deserved it, because the affair became consensual. And I guess she should never report it, and Wright would be teaching there still. Or there’s only a limited window in which her behavior allowed reporting it, and in any case the defamation claim was the price she pays. Again, she paid him.

Also enjoy the blame in her above for having her “married lover” get her employment. You know who helps employ law students?  Teachers who students have worked for who then write them recommendations. That, and his powerful position as FTC commissioner and as lawyer to several huge companies like google and Amazon on work these students helped him perform, was how he roped these students in.  Wright is the married guy with 3 kids who was supervising all 7 of these different women at different times, but yeah better blame the woman for sleeping with a married man.

This is why women don’t report. [/quote]

This. What the people criticizing Dorsey don't seem to get us that she actually sacrificed her rep to come forward and talk about her experiences with Wright while in law school. She knew people would dig into her relationship with him after, that it would undermine her professional rep, and that Wright would likely release embarrassing texts/emails from her, which he did. But she came forward to support the case against Wright at GM, which helped get him fired, and expose him for what he is, which is a jerk who preys on female law students for sex while lording his power over their lives.

Dorsey could have stayed silent, and it would probably have been better for her professionally. She did the right thing and spoke up, told the TRUTH, and was rewarded with a huge defamation lawsuit (again, for simply telling the truth) and even now people like you are talking about the sordid details if her affair online and calling her a grifter.

You'd hope people would look at that and maybe a lightbulb would go off about how high dollar defamation lawsuits are being used to silence people who absolutely should come forward and tell the truth if their experience, but I'm sure instead you'll just spend 20 pages calling Dorsey names, accusing her of mental illness, digging into her other relationships (omg, is her husband gay for Hugh Jackman!?) etc.[/quote]

Right. You guys don’t like Dorsey but had she not spoken up, Wright would likely still be teaching at George Mason, might still be a commissioner at the FTC, would stop be repping and advising corporate giants like Amazon and Google in their antitrust suits.

The point is that these big dollar defamation suits against women who sue or complain about sexual harassment are a new tool in the toolbox of harassers. Freedman knew this and employed it here. It’s both a punishment and a leverage and negotiating tool.

It is completely ridiculous that the guy who signed a contract promising not to retaliate against Lively is now suing her for defamation for 400 million dollars. That’s 8 times as much as Depp sued Heard for and that involved the Pirates franchise. Baldoni, the enlightened male feminist, filed his lawsuit as a retaliatory punishment and a threat. I can’t believe you guys don’t understand this. [/quote]

I don’t think that’s accurate.  There was another victim who spoke up first.  Dorsey was second and only after she learned that wright was involved with a romantic rival.

Again, Wright should have been fired for sexually harassing  law students.  But I don’t think the relationship he had with Dorsey was sexual harassment after she graduated.  She had many off ramps and instead chose to use her sexual relationship with him for career gain while the rest of us relied upon our law school grades, journals, and interview skills.  Her story is really yet another demonstration that there is often a lot of gray in these cases.[/quote]

Dp. Look, abusive people have always been able to use the legal system to harass people. This is not a new ‘tool’ for harassers. Look at our president. Look at tons of people who use the courts. You might even consider Gottlieb and his flood of motions and activity in these cases. And of course look at Blake herself and how she avoided proper channels to file a harassment claim and instead took her one sided story to the NYT and used a Ca filing as cover.

I need to look at this CA law and how it’s written to judge fully, but as I mentioned above, I suspect this is a well meaning but overbroad and ultimately harmful law as written. There are already methods that judges have to shut down frivolous litigation but IME they are too rarely used. [/quote]

“Feminist lawyer” argues CA law protecting victims of SA/SH retaliatory defamation lawsuits may be unconstitutional; should allow greater protections for male feminists/harassers/retaliators like Justin Baldoni.[/quote]

Pp. Sorry, where did I say that? You are great at twisting and lying. I am a ‘feminist’ and a lawyer and I am perfectly aware of poorly written but well meaning laws. Is this one of them? Idk. But I do know BL is not a victim here. [/quote]

Isn’t that where you were going, though?  You said you needed to look more carefully at the law, but that “I suspect this is a well meaning but overbroad and ultimately harmful law as written.”  In other words, you suspected the law was overbroad and therefore potentially unconstitutional, no?  And wouldn’t the over breadth be due to the provisions relating to defamation claims?  If I’m wrong, please let me know how.

I guess what I did was write a sentence that laid out where your analysis seemed to be going before you got there.  But I did say “may be” unconstitutional, so it seemed relatively fair. [/quote]

PP. It depends. If the law can be weaponized by people who weren’t truly SH, then yes, it’s well meaning but has unintended consequences. And if you’re the VAWA lawyer you claim you are (obvi not, but let’s pretend for kicks), you’ll know that there are a number of proposals, laws, policies etc out there that were well meaning but have back fired in certain cases. [/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