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]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]

Yes, I agree with this, also. [b]How is she supposed to figure out the smear if she can’t seek info on it?[/b]  Like Pp says above, she’s not giving their identities away to the public, she’s looking for communication etc links to the parties etc.

With Case and Koslow, Lively actually paid the cost for producing the materials.  If there’s no communications, these folks might not even have anything to produce. [/quote]

By serving interrogatories on the parties, obtaining names of content creators they've worked with, issuing subpoenas to CC with KNOWN ties to WP (such as Perez), reviewing discovery materials and emails for the names of any CCs, obtaining Jed Wallace's client list... not by issuing subpoena to unmask users who were simply posting negatively.  [/quote]

It's not like they are subpoenaing hundreds of X users here. She's asking for info on 20 users. Those users were obviously selected based on the volume of posts regarding Lively or the case, the timing of those posts, and the tenor of the posts. They are likely thousands of accounts that have posted negative things about Blake in the last year. They are asking for info on 20. So no, they are not looking to unmask users who "were simply posting negatively." They are targeting specific accounts based on other evidence they have. Do we have the full list of users they are targeting? The ones I've seen posting about their info being subpoenaed are all content creators who likely profit of their discussion of Blake or this case in some way. To me, that's fair game for this level of subpoena. These are not just regular people out there weighing in that they don't like Lively or criticizing her and Ryan randomly. For the record, I've done that many times and I don't worry about being subpoenaed over it.[/quote]

I disagree but appreciate you having a respectful tone. Volume and timing of post will reasonably be linked to events such as when a hearing occurs or when something is posted on the docket The tenor of the posts is part of free speech. This thread also spikes during certain events. But I will reserve judgment to see what reasonable basis Lively has to seek this information, if there are MTQs and I'm sure there will be.

They are allowed to profit off their opinion. While it's kind of gross, YouTube allows them to do that.  NY Times and other media outlets also make money. That doesn't mean they are doing something wrong. It could very well be that they bash Blake Lively because that gets clicks and money and it not at Wayfarer's direction at all. That's probably the case for most of them. [/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