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]I don’t think she is saying tell me who they are so I can expose their identity to everyone. I think she’s saying tell me who they are so I can figure out if they were getting paid to smear me. And I don’t mind that.

People who post shit on x and other social media are ultimately responsible forbthebshit they do post imo.[/quote]

I can't speak to the first part but yes to the second part. A lot of people spread BS online and I don't have a problem with legal mechanisms that enable someone potentially defamed online to obtain info on identities via a formal court process. Free speech laws never anticipated the anonymity of social media on the internet or how easy it would become to spread lies about someone with no accountability.[/quote]

There are so many people on the internet who should be held accountable for what they say ...literal white supremacists, sex pests, people who send death threats...but sure, let's go after people who snark about Blake Lively's hair care line.[/quote]

There is concrete evidence that Baldoni and Wayfarer paid people (TAG and Wallace) to spread negative content about her online. I'm okay with her exploring whether and where that happened by investigating some of the negative content about her online. If it weren't for these texts and emails showing that Baldoni/Wayfarer sought this service from TAG and Wallace, I wouldn't feel comfortable with it. But some of these messages indicate that's what was happening. It's not legal to launch a retaliatory smear campaign against an employee who raised claims of harassment. So I'm okay with it in this case, especially since this info is all going to be AEO. It's not like they are going to publish these posters' identity for all to see.[/quote]

How far should this extend? To the entire universe of anyone who ever said anything negative about Lively, including this board? There has to be reasonable limits. Follow the line from Wayfarer to TAG to Wallace and if it eventually leads you to these people based on evidence, ok, but there needs to be a link, IMO. (That's my opinion, I don't know how Liman will rule so I don't want it to be said later that I was wrong, yadda yadda yadda).

I do not see any indication this will be AEO. If it's like other third-parties who have been served, their addresses will be posted. I can easily see where Lively could unmask a username, then try to subpoena the actual individual and they avoid it and Lively seeks a motion for alternative service, fully posting their username, real name, personal address, email, phone number. I truly hope I'm wrong.

It will be interesting to see how aggressive Lively's team will be as these MTQ pop up, like if they will try to fight to move the ones in other jurisdictions back to Liman's court.

[/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