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]The content creators aren't being sued for defamation though, this is just evidence gathering. I have no sympathy for Perez or Candace but some of these CC are very small and some are making videos from their bedrooms. I would really like to know how they were chosen. I know they asked Wayfarer for a list of content creators. If they are trying to get evidence from those who were named and have some actual link to the Wayfarer or Wallace parties, that is one thing, but if they are just going to subpoena CC because they were negative about BL, I am not saying that is illegal, but it really is disgusting.[/quote]

I do feel for the smaller CCs who just started talking about this case because it was high profile and now may worry they need a lawyer or may be burdened by discovery in a way that could be really difficult for a regular person. Like you I have zero empathy for Candace Owens or Perez Hilton. There's also a creator named Without a Crystal Ball on Reddit and I wouldn't care if she was subpoenaed -- she's crazy unreliable and just spews gossip. I'm okay with there be consequences for that behavior.

I am taking a wait and see approach on this though. The CCs may genuinely be very central to the case. BL wants to show that Baldoni et al set out to push a negative narrative about Blake online, in order to discredit her, both in retaliation for her complaints about Baldoni's/Heath's behavior and also so that people wouldn't believe her if she went public with her complaints. Baldoni's argument thus far has been that he and his side didn't need to push a negative narrative about Blake because people organically and spontaneously started talking negatively about her based on her own actions.

Right now it is honestly impossible to know which of those two narrative is true. There is certainly plenty of evidence that Lively committed a number of own goals on the PR front, most notably with her tone-deaf comments on DV and her efforts to promote her booze and haircare products during the IEWU promotion. Certainly some portion of the negative commentary around her is organic.

However, you cannot ignore the texts where Baldoni quite clearly seems to be asking Abel and Nathan to use PR to create a negative narrative about Blake online. Or the texts where Abel and Nathan seem to take credit for the negative narrative, or credit the work by Wallace and his team. This is pretty compelling evidence that at least some of the negative commentary online was driven by Abel/TAG/Wallace at Baldoni's request, which supports the retaliation claim.

Given those competing narratives, talking to CCs about their content and looking to see when the negative commentary about Blake started and what spurred it is of central importance to BOTH cases. It doesn't necessarily even benefit BL. Perhaps investigating this will reveal that the CCs were responding only to BL's own behavior, which would help prove Baldoni's case that the negative narrative was organic.

But it's relevant. Whether it supports BL's case or Baldoni's. So while I do feel for the smaller creators who never anticipated dealing with something like this, it's just so central to the case that I'd like to see where it goes before I start yelling that it's unfair. This is at the heart of the case.[/quote]

I
One or two ambiguous texts don’t justify this degree of discovery.  Blake is very very lucky to have gotten Liman but the creators can oppose the subpoenas in their home jurisdictions.  Make Blake spend the money to defend them everywhere.[/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