Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, I agree with this, also. How is she supposed to figure out the smear if she can’t seek info on it? 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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

There is no “concrete evidence.” Jesus, your disregard for facts is stupefying. You would be a horrible lawyer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

In which case, there is a poster here than Freedman and Wallace should subpoena.

I'm one of the posters you are referring to here and I'd just like to state that I'd have no problem with having Freedman and Wallace subpoenaing my personal info to see if I'm being paid to post here, because I'm not, and I'd actually welcome the opportunity to prove to you that I'm a legitimate poster so you would stop accusing me of being a "paid shill" just because you can't come up with actual arguments against what I post here.

Are you married? Do you have any shared bank accounts with your DH or maybe your kids or an elderly parent? Are you sure they would all be OK with a subpoena for those records?!

Who is subpoenaing bank records? Lively has subpoenaed identifying info only. No one is getting bank info here and they won't unless there is evidence to show payments from one of the parties.

I think some of you don't understand how subpoenas work. These subpoenas aren't even served on the content creators or X users at this point. They are being served on Google and X to provide user info so Lively can see if there is anything there that would justify seeking additional info. Most of these subpoenas will come to nothing because Google or X will provide this info and it will become immediately obvious these are not paid employees of Wallace or TAG, and there will be nothing further. The users will only be directly subpoenaed if unmasking them reveals anything suspicious.

And again, if Freedman or whoever wanted to subpoena Jeff for my IP address and posting history, I would have no problem with that because all it would turn up is that I'm a regular person with no relationship to any of the parties in this case who has posted periodically about my actual views. No one is getting my bank statements off that, lol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

There is no “concrete evidence.” Jesus, your disregard for facts is stupefying. You would be a horrible lawyer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

In which case, there is a poster here than Freedman and Wallace should subpoena.

I'm one of the posters you are referring to here and I'd just like to state that I'd have no problem with having Freedman and Wallace subpoenaing my personal info to see if I'm being paid to post here, because I'm not, and I'd actually welcome the opportunity to prove to you that I'm a legitimate poster so you would stop accusing me of being a "paid shill" just because you can't come up with actual arguments against what I post here.

Great, go ahead and post all your personal info here, no one is stopping you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

In which case, there is a poster here than Freedman and Wallace should subpoena.

I'm one of the posters you are referring to here and I'd just like to state that I'd have no problem with having Freedman and Wallace subpoenaing my personal info to see if I'm being paid to post here, because I'm not, and I'd actually welcome the opportunity to prove to you that I'm a legitimate poster so you would stop accusing me of being a "paid shill" just because you can't come up with actual arguments against what I post here.

Are you married? Do you have any shared bank accounts with your DH or maybe your kids or an elderly parent? Are you sure they would all be OK with a subpoena for those records?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

In which case, there is a poster here than Freedman and Wallace should subpoena.

I'm one of the posters you are referring to here and I'd just like to state that I'd have no problem with having Freedman and Wallace subpoenaing my personal info to see if I'm being paid to post here, because I'm not, and I'd actually welcome the opportunity to prove to you that I'm a legitimate poster so you would stop accusing me of being a "paid shill" just because you can't come up with actual arguments against what I post here.

Didn’t they ask you to create an account and start posting through there and you couldn’t even do that?

And plenty of people have refuted your dumb points using cogent arguments.

Lol why would I create an account on here when none of you do? Why should I be held to a standard on here that you don't even hold yourselves to? Also we all know that if I published my identity on here, you would use it to trash me online, dig into my employer, my family, where I went to school, where I live, etc. I've seen how JB supporters go after public supporters of Lively and no one would sign up for that voluntarily -- having your business spammed on Yelp with a bunch of bad reviews from non-customers, having your Instagram comments filled with people calling you names and talking about this case? No thank you. Y'all are a rabid, psychotic fan base out for blood. No way would I submit myself to that.

I'm saying I'd be fine having my info subpoenaed in this case because I know I'm posting about this case totally voluntarily and sharing my personal opinion, and they wouldn't find any evidence I am being paid to post or am being influenced to post because no such evidence exists. These content creators and X users whose info is being subpoenaed will be able to stay anonymous publicly, their info will only be disclosed under seal with the court. What do they have to hide?

Honestly, WF couldn’t pay for better negative press than Blake is going to get with these subpoenas. Liman may like Gottlieb, but his “crisis management” skills are lacking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

Concrete evidence? bahahaha, all she is has is a few ambiguous texts. Ryan and Blake just are incapable of understanding she comes across as bossy and entitled. People don’t like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

They paid a SAHM with less than 300 subscribers to say “boo Blake?” That’s one of the people subpoenaed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

There isn’t concrete evidence though …where is it? Show me? You’re the dinosaur who doesn’t understand social media and thinks the social media activity last summer was all inorganic, huh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

In which case, there is a poster here than Freedman and Wallace should subpoena.

I'm one of the posters you are referring to here and I'd just like to state that I'd have no problem with having Freedman and Wallace subpoenaing my personal info to see if I'm being paid to post here, because I'm not, and I'd actually welcome the opportunity to prove to you that I'm a legitimate poster so you would stop accusing me of being a "paid shill" just because you can't come up with actual arguments against what I post here.

Didn’t they ask you to create an account and start posting through there and you couldn’t even do that?

And plenty of people have refuted your dumb points using cogent arguments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

In which case, there is a poster here than Freedman and Wallace should subpoena.

I'm one of the posters you are referring to here and I'd just like to state that I'd have no problem with having Freedman and Wallace subpoenaing my personal info to see if I'm being paid to post here, because I'm not, and I'd actually welcome the opportunity to prove to you that I'm a legitimate poster so you would stop accusing me of being a "paid shill" just because you can't come up with actual arguments against what I post here.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Regarding the first point, I don't think there is an intent to necessarily publish their names, but it's an invasive subpoena (including asking for bank account information, which they will likely then subpoena as well). We have seen on the docket that the BL side is not careful about redacting names and addresses of non-parties like the Wayfarer employees. That's normal in litigation and they're not required to redact, but I can absolutely see how that is scary to these social media users. They need to reveal their identities just to assert their rights here! I guess they could file for a protective order but how many know to do that and what if something slips through? Even for those who are not challenging it, their names could end up listed in further motions down the line. Many are pro se or can't afford a lawyer.

Second, "posting shit" without legal consequences is absolutely their legal right. They are not even being accused of any wrongdoing, not even defamation (knowingly posting lies). Just posting their opinion on a legal case is totally their right. Bashing BL or JB is anyone's right. The fact that you are calling it the shit they post is already indicative that being served a subpoena is implying they did something wrong when there is zero indication that is the case.

If you're a Lively supporter on here I would expect you to be sensitive to this since you guys are called paid shills for Lively every single day with zero evidence other than people don't like your opinions (and I have defended you guys on that before although obviously this is an anon board so you wouldn't know that). If that's what Lively is doing I can't support that at all and it's kind of batshit. If Lively's responses to MTQs indicate that these particular creators were served because there is some link to the Wayfarer or Wallace parties that has been unearthed in earlier discovery, I'll be more understanding. If it's JUST that they post negative stuff then sorry but that is an insane fishing expedition.