Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retaliation claim is weak because Justin’s defense is that he was not acting in retaliation for sexual harassment, but because of Blake’s campaign against him. It’s a question for the jury and that is bad for Blake. Her lack of likability will hurt her just as much as the actual facts.

This. And countering PR with PR is unlikely to be retaliation in any kind of EEO context. The PR was to support It Ends With Us as much as Baldoni. The troll who was all caps shrieking accusations at how horrible everyone here is - and yes I am getting to a germane point - also claimed to be living on TikTok and “seeing” this campaign develop. She came to this late. That ignores essential realities about Lively’s press for years and years and years. I’m the woman who wanted to talk intersectional issues and who has known and seen for years that Lively attracts bad press not because of her reproductive system but because she is an unusually aggressive, unusually tone-deaf interviewee for someone in her position. Leighton Meester played the spicy character in Gossip Girl and has opposite press. The cast of Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants largely does not have her press problems.

Her likability was the goddamned ground floor for her spurious claims. And large swaths of the population do not like her and are absolutely entitled to feel that way and to vote with their wallets against supporting her hair and drink brands.

Someone needs to send Freedman links to Lipstick Alley and Oh No They Didnt, because posters have been talking about how awful Blake Lively is for years, and that is absolutely relevant to the case as you've outlined.

PP: https://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/91682146.html

People have been chomping at the bit for her downfall for over a decade now.

Owens had a good take on this: To paraphrase, these celebs are such ego maniacs and so paranoid they truly can’t grasp the masses simply not liking them and their inability to browbeat and use PR to force the masses to like them. It MUST be a conspiracy, there MUST be people plotting against them. They are freakin’ kooks. Low watt kooks at that. Ryan nor Blake have any higher education.

Anonymous wrote:Could there be a sort of split in this case: Blake wins damages for retaliation, Justin wins for defamation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retaliation claim is weak because Justin’s defense is that he was not acting in retaliation for sexual harassment, but because of Blake’s campaign against him. It’s a question for the jury and that is bad for Blake. Her lack of likability will hurt her just as much as the actual facts.

This. And countering PR with PR is unlikely to be retaliation in any kind of EEO context. The PR was to support It Ends With Us as much as Baldoni. The troll who was all caps shrieking accusations at how horrible everyone here is - and yes I am getting to a germane point - also claimed to be living on TikTok and “seeing” this campaign develop. She came to this late. That ignores essential realities about Lively’s press for years and years and years. I’m the woman who wanted to talk intersectional issues and who has known and seen for years that Lively attracts bad press not because of her reproductive system but because she is an unusually aggressive, unusually tone-deaf interviewee for someone in her position. Leighton Meester played the spicy character in Gossip Girl and has opposite press. The cast of Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants largely does not have her press problems.

Her likability was the goddamned ground floor for her spurious claims. And large swaths of the population do not like her and are absolutely entitled to feel that way and to vote with their wallets against supporting her hair and drink brands.

Someone needs to send Freedman links to Lipstick Alley and Oh No They Didnt, because posters have been talking about how awful Blake Lively is for years, and that is absolutely relevant to the case as you've outlined.

PP: https://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/91682146.html

People have been chomping at the bit for her downfall for over a decade now.

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like Blake Lively wanted to play Blake Lively, not "Lily Bloom," in this movie and that's where a lot of her (IMO warped) perceptions arise from.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retaliation claim is weak because Justin’s defense is that he was not acting in retaliation for sexual harassment, but because of Blake’s campaign against him. It’s a question for the jury and that is bad for Blake. Her lack of likability will hurt her just as much as the actual facts.

This. And countering PR with PR is unlikely to be retaliation in any kind of EEO context. The PR was to support It Ends With Us as much as Baldoni. The troll who was all caps shrieking accusations at how horrible everyone here is - and yes I am getting to a germane point - also claimed to be living on TikTok and “seeing” this campaign develop. She came to this late. That ignores essential realities about Lively’s press for years and years and years. I’m the woman who wanted to talk intersectional issues and who has known and seen for years that Lively attracts bad press not because of her reproductive system but because she is an unusually aggressive, unusually tone-deaf interviewee for someone in her position. Leighton Meester played the spicy character in Gossip Girl and has opposite press. The cast of Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants largely does not have her press problems.

Her likability was the goddamned ground floor for her spurious claims. And large swaths of the population do not like her and are absolutely entitled to feel that way and to vote with their wallets against supporting her hair and drink brands.

Hi, thanks for referencing me. I did not say I 'lived' on tiktok, I thought lawyers were supposed to be precise? I said I was on tiktok at the time witnessed what appeared to be in an inorganic smear campaign develop. And saw the internet turn its woman hating gaze on its next victim.

I didn't come that late I just took a break, I'm the poster who said on page 14 this would turn into a sh*tshow. I also haven't reporting a single GD one of your crappy posts. I just respond to you calling you sexist to your (digital) face. I'm not a troll, and I never called you a troll. Sorry my opinion is inconvenient for you.

I don't think a woman's prior behavior dictates whether she can or cannot be SA/Hed. Because that is misogyny to believe that. I said I didn't particularly like her. I even said I liked Leighton Meester better! It doesn't mean I think she is then asking to be SH-ed. I don't believe her being annoying entitles men to treat her poorly or for her to be subjected to poor working conditions. No one is saying you have to buy her hair and drink brands. What I'm saying is you are misogynistic and sexist if you decide that it is specifically her likeability that causes you to disbelieve her. Because that is not factual and its not evidentiary. And if you claim to be lawyer and pitch this well I hope I never hire you that's for sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retaliation claim is weak because Justin’s defense is that he was not acting in retaliation for sexual harassment, but because of Blake’s campaign against him. It’s a question for the jury and that is bad for Blake. Her lack of likability will hurt her just as much as the actual facts.

This. And countering PR with PR is unlikely to be retaliation in any kind of EEO context. The PR was to support It Ends With Us as much as Baldoni. The troll who was all caps shrieking accusations at how horrible everyone here is - and yes I am getting to a germane point - also claimed to be living on TikTok and “seeing” this campaign develop. She came to this late. That ignores essential realities about Lively’s press for years and years and years. I’m the woman who wanted to talk intersectional issues and who has known and seen for years that Lively attracts bad press not because of her reproductive system but because she is an unusually aggressive, unusually tone-deaf interviewee for someone in her position. Leighton Meester played the spicy character in Gossip Girl and has opposite press. The cast of Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants largely does not have her press problems.

Her likability was the goddamned ground floor for her spurious claims. And large swaths of the population do not like her and are absolutely entitled to feel that way and to vote with their wallets against supporting her hair and drink brands.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retaliation claim is weak because Justin’s defense is that he was not acting in retaliation for sexual harassment, but because of Blake’s campaign against him. It’s a question for the jury and that is bad for Blake. Her lack of likability will hurt her just as much as the actual facts.

This. And countering PR with PR is unlikely to be retaliation in any kind of EEO context. The PR was to support It Ends With Us as much as Baldoni. The troll who was all caps shrieking accusations at how horrible everyone here is - and yes I am getting to a germane point - also claimed to be living on TikTok and “seeing” this campaign develop. She came to this late. That ignores essential realities about Lively’s press for years and years and years. I’m the woman who wanted to talk intersectional issues and who has known and seen for years that Lively attracts bad press not because of her reproductive system but because she is an unusually aggressive, unusually tone-deaf interviewee for someone in her position. Leighton Meester played the spicy character in Gossip Girl and has opposite press. The cast of Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants largely does not have her press problems.

Her likability was the goddamned ground floor for her spurious claims. And large swaths of the population do not like her and are absolutely entitled to feel that way and to vote with their wallets against supporting her hair and drink brands.

Someone needs to send Freedman links to Lipstick Alley and Oh No They Didnt, because posters have been talking about how awful Blake Lively is for years, and that is absolutely relevant to the case as you've outlined.

PP: https://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/91682146.html

People have been chomping at the bit for her downfall for over a decade now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retaliation claim is weak because Justin’s defense is that he was not acting in retaliation for sexual harassment, but because of Blake’s campaign against him. It’s a question for the jury and that is bad for Blake. Her lack of likability will hurt her just as much as the actual facts.

This. And countering PR with PR is unlikely to be retaliation in any kind of EEO context. The PR was to support It Ends With Us as much as Baldoni. The troll who was all caps shrieking accusations at how horrible everyone here is - and yes I am getting to a germane point - also claimed to be living on TikTok and “seeing” this campaign develop. She came to this late. That ignores essential realities about Lively’s press for years and years and years. I’m the woman who wanted to talk intersectional issues and who has known and seen for years that Lively attracts bad press not because of her reproductive system but because she is an unusually aggressive, unusually tone-deaf interviewee for someone in her position. Leighton Meester played the spicy character in Gossip Girl and has opposite press. The cast of Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants largely does not have her press problems.

Her likability was the goddamned ground floor for her spurious claims. And large swaths of the population do not like her and are absolutely entitled to feel that way and to vote with their wallets against supporting her hair and drink brands.

Someone needs to send Freedman links to Lipstick Alley and Oh No They Didnt, because posters have been talking about how awful Blake Lively is for years, and that is absolutely relevant to the case as you've outlined.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retaliation claim is weak because Justin’s defense is that he was not acting in retaliation for sexual harassment, but because of Blake’s campaign against him. It’s a question for the jury and that is bad for Blake. Her lack of likability will hurt her just as much as the actual facts.

This. And countering PR with PR is unlikely to be retaliation in any kind of EEO context. The PR was to support It Ends With Us as much as Baldoni. The troll who was all caps shrieking accusations at how horrible everyone here is - and yes I am getting to a germane point - also claimed to be living on TikTok and “seeing” this campaign develop. She came to this late. That ignores essential realities about Lively’s press for years and years and years. I’m the woman who wanted to talk intersectional issues and who has known and seen for years that Lively attracts bad press not because of her reproductive system but because she is an unusually aggressive, unusually tone-deaf interviewee for someone in her position. Leighton Meester played the spicy character in Gossip Girl and has opposite press. The cast of Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants largely does not have her press problems.

Her likability was the goddamned ground floor for her spurious claims. And large swaths of the population do not like her and are absolutely entitled to feel that way and to vote with their wallets against supporting her hair and drink brands.

Anonymous wrote:I thought that after the trailer incident etc when she came to them with the list of 17 issues, Baldoni and his production company signed an agreement not to retaliate against her for raising those issues. So isn't that agreement what the retaliation claim is based on, and so any retaliation on his part after that would be in violation of that agreement he made?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, it sounds like Jed Wallace is one of the defendant(s) who's going to be added to Lively's lawsuit:

https://deadline.com/2025/02/blake-lively-trial-strategy-justin-baldoni-1236278393/

So BL allegation is that Wallace/his company was hired by JB and others she is suing to do the social media takedown? Yes I read article linked, but honestly got confused by how written since don’t know all the names to know who is on which side.

Yes. Wallace is known for his unmoral pr tactics.

It's really unclear to me what's immoral and particularly, illegal here. It seems sort of sleezy and dirty to use bots but...is that sanctionable? At the end of the day, even that effort would not have been successful if they didn't have the underlying footage of Lively being absolutely heinous on multiple occasions. To me, whatever they did to boost those views is sort of secondary to the fact that the worst offense is those tapes were available in the first place.

Not to detract from your underlying point, but I think Jed's team may have planted stories, not used bots. TAG denies the use of bots, but I don't see anything Justin's complaint denying the planting of negative stories by real humans. denial of bots, pg. 148: https://thelawsuitinfo.com/downloads/amended-complaint.pdf

This is the immoral part i was talking about. A lot of entertainment PR agents came out and said using of bots is looked down upon ans nit something normally done. Thats what Jed's known for in the PR industry. You can find plenty of reddit posts about it, lots not dealing with this Blake situation too.

Who cares if it is immoral? That doesn’t make it actionable.

Anonymous wrote:The retaliation claim is weak because Justin’s defense is that he was not acting in retaliation for sexual harassment, but because of Blake’s campaign against him. It’s a question for the jury and that is bad for Blake. Her lack of likability will hurt her just as much as the actual facts.