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]Unpopular opinion. The Vanzan issue is far more interesting and important than the main case. I think most reasonable people would agree at this point that Blake’s SH claims don’t meet the legal definition of SH. She’s focused on retaliation but good luck proving 1. A smear campaign existed, and 2. the proximate cause was her SH claim and not putting him in the basement, taking his face off the poster, and being a generally horrible person. That’s a long way to say you couldn’t pay me to care about Blake’s SH claims at this point. There are far more worthy causes and plaintiffs to get behind.

Now Vanzan on the other hand. Oh I’m definitely locked in. As an American, the idea that my privacy rights could be so easily and flagrantly violated is a huge problem for me, huge. Separate and apart from the main case, I think a lot of us need to see the system work here and need to see something done about this. [/quote]

I feel the opposite. Vanzan is a sideshow to me, I'm mildly interested as a lawyer but don't care that much. I don't consider it a privacy issue because Abel was using her work phone to send these texts, AND they were work texts. I haven't seen any texts about Abel's private life or anything that is personally embarrassing but not related to work. That would be different. Every text I've seen that came out of the Vanzan subpoena is Abel communicating regarding a Jonesworks client, Wayfarer. Jones also says the phone itself was issued to Abel by Jonesworks. I've seen stuff saying that Abel ported her personal number onto her work phone so she thinks the texts belong to her, and it would be interesting to see if that's the case, but personally I look at that situation and I just don't see it. Work phone, work activity, firm client -- those texts belong to Jonesworks. Abel was very dumb to conducted herself as she did on that phone, she should have known better.

Regarding the SH, I view it as interesting because it's a jury question. I don't think it's possible for any of us to say whether or not there was SH at this point because we weren't there, we haven't heard from witnesses or the party, etc. I could really go either way. I really want to hear from other people on set and would like to hear both Blake and Justin explain what happened in their own words before I decide. I think it's impossible to get a sense of what the environment was like on set just from written documents. I found the video that came out to be ambiguous. It certainly wasn't sexual assault or very overt harassment, but she did look uncomfortable. I don't think it proves anything either way. The retaliation evidence looks pretty strong to me right now. [/quote]

You act neutral, but it's clear you believe Blake. Why can't you just be honest?[/quote]

I am always honest about my true feelings about this case when I post here. What I wrote above are my true feelings about the case. The problem is that some of you think you know the truth for sure and anyone who disagrees with you is "Team Blake." In that case, yeah, I'm "Team Blake." But in reality, where people are capable of understanding nuance, I'm actual a proponent for giving Blake her day in court and seeing if she can prove her allegations, which I believe where brought in good faith. But I'm not actually sure one way or another if they are SH or if she can prove the elements of retaliation. If it's hard for you to understand that position, you are the problem.[/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