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]I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs. [/quote]

You can't just randomly subpoena any one who may have mentioned you in a negative way and get their financial info.  Account numbers are protected financial info under multiple federal financial privacy laws.  There has to be a direct, provable connection between the so-call scheme and each individual subpoena.   A vague text non-specific to any particular individual isn't enough.

Further, you have argued the motion to dismiss Baldoni's defamation case was correctly decided.  So, Blake and NY Times are entitled to First Amendment according to your thinking but not individual content creators.[/quote]

But Lively is NOT just randomly subpoenaing any one who may have mentioned her in a negative way and seeking their financial info.

[b]She is subpoenaing identifying info about a select group of content creators who have posted a large volume of negative content about her during a period of time when she knows Baldoni and Wayfarer appear to have contracted with TAG and Wallace to spread negative content about Lively online. And only the high volume creators, people who either posted a lot about Blake or whose content was liked, shared, and commented upon at a high volume. That's it. [/b]And she's not seeking access to their financial records, bank accounts, transaction records or similar protected info. She is seeking ONLY financial info that may help identify these individuals so that she may see if there are any links between them and Baldoni or his associates during this time. It's actually very narrow.

If you are one of these creators, one way to avoid your financial info being discovered is to voluntarily provide your identifying info to Lively's team. Then they wouldn't need to request subscriber info in order to identify you. You wouldn't even have to unmask yourself publicly, you could just disclose your identity directly to Lively so that she does not have to go through Google or X to obtain identifying info.[/quote]

You are posting your speculation as fact. Several of the content creators did not start posting about the case until 2025. There has been no explanation by Lively’s team of the reasons. [/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