Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even an example of such an article.

Why is falsehood a requirement for proving retaliation? Asking honestly, because I don’t think that is a legal requirement.

Because she chose to allege the retaliation took the form of a smear campaign. She doesn’t allege “normal” retaliation like demotion, lower salary, lose of responsibilities because they didn’t occur.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even an example of such an article.

Why is falsehood a requirement for proving retaliation? Asking honestly, because I don’t think that is a legal requirement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even an example of such an article.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to disappoint the Blake fans but the literal definition of a smear mmm campaign is the use of false allegations to discredit a public figure. Lively and her lawyers chose the terminology themselves.

That's not how legal claims work. "Smear" is not a legal term if art. If this goes to a jury, the jury will not be instructed on the literal definition of the word smear, and told to find out if there was a smear. They would be instructed on the elements of retaliation and ask to decide if Wayfarer's actions meet those elements.

I would not be surprised if parties were actually disallowed from using the term "smear" in court because it has prejudicial risk for both parties and could confuse the jury. Parties use language in filings all the time that don't make it to court -- filings are meant to be persuasive docs. But juries are presumed to be less savvy than judges, and trials are meant to strip away that sort of persuasion so that the jury rules on the facts alone.

There was no falsehood told about me, but by letting people see the true me they destroyed my reputation. Good luck with that.

I get stuck on that too. Blake's PR has worked hard but it's still been pretty known that shes a terrible, racist person who has admitted to being totally toxic and poison on sets for more than a decade. She's awful in interviews. I feel like even of someone did boost the views or comments or whatever to make already publicly available videos more visible...eh, it's still all content you put out there originally and had total control over.

So they did it but it’s definitely not retaliation. Good luck with that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to disappoint the Blake fans but the literal definition of a smear mmm campaign is the use of false allegations to discredit a public figure. Lively and her lawyers chose the terminology themselves.

That's not how legal claims work. "Smear" is not a legal term if art. If this goes to a jury, the jury will not be instructed on the literal definition of the word smear, and told to find out if there was a smear. They would be instructed on the elements of retaliation and ask to decide if Wayfarer's actions meet those elements.

I would not be surprised if parties were actually disallowed from using the term "smear" in court because it has prejudicial risk for both parties and could confuse the jury. Parties use language in filings all the time that don't make it to court -- filings are meant to be persuasive docs. But juries are presumed to be less savvy than judges, and trials are meant to strip away that sort of persuasion so that the jury rules on the facts alone.

There was no falsehood told about me, but by letting people see the true me they destroyed my reputation. Good luck with that.

I get stuck on that too. Blake's PR has worked hard but it's still been pretty known that shes a terrible, racist person who has admitted to being totally toxic and poison on sets for more than a decade. She's awful in interviews. I feel like even of someone did boost the views or comments or whatever to make already publicly available videos more visible...eh, it's still all content you put out there originally and had total control over.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to disappoint the Blake fans but the literal definition of a smear mmm campaign is the use of false allegations to discredit a public figure. Lively and her lawyers chose the terminology themselves.

That's not how legal claims work. "Smear" is not a legal term if art. If this goes to a jury, the jury will not be instructed on the literal definition of the word smear, and told to find out if there was a smear. They would be instructed on the elements of retaliation and ask to decide if Wayfarer's actions meet those elements.

I would not be surprised if parties were actually disallowed from using the term "smear" in court because it has prejudicial risk for both parties and could confuse the jury. Parties use language in filings all the time that don't make it to court -- filings are meant to be persuasive docs. But juries are presumed to be less savvy than judges, and trials are meant to strip away that sort of persuasion so that the jury rules on the facts alone.

There was no falsehood told about me, but by letting people see the true me they destroyed my reputation. Good luck with that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to disappoint the Blake fans but the literal definition of a smear mmm campaign is the use of false allegations to discredit a public figure. Lively and her lawyers chose the terminology themselves.

That's not how legal claims work. "Smear" is not a legal term if art. If this goes to a jury, the jury will not be instructed on the literal definition of the word smear, and told to find out if there was a smear. They would be instructed on the elements of retaliation and ask to decide if Wayfarer's actions meet those elements.

I would not be surprised if parties were actually disallowed from using the term "smear" in court because it has prejudicial risk for both parties and could confuse the jury. Parties use language in filings all the time that don't make it to court -- filings are meant to be persuasive docs. But juries are presumed to be less savvy than judges, and trials are meant to strip away that sort of persuasion so that the jury rules on the facts alone.

There was no falsehood told about me, but by letting people see the true me they destroyed my reputation. Good luck with that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to disappoint the Blake fans but the literal definition of a smear mmm campaign is the use of false allegations to discredit a public figure. Lively and her lawyers chose the terminology themselves.

That's not how legal claims work. "Smear" is not a legal term if art. If this goes to a jury, the jury will not be instructed on the literal definition of the word smear, and told to find out if there was a smear. They would be instructed on the elements of retaliation and ask to decide if Wayfarer's actions meet those elements.

I would not be surprised if parties were actually disallowed from using the term "smear" in court because it has prejudicial risk for both parties and could confuse the jury. Parties use language in filings all the time that don't make it to court -- filings are meant to be persuasive docs. But juries are presumed to be less savvy than judges, and trials are meant to strip away that sort of persuasion so that the jury rules on the facts alone.

Anonymous wrote:I hate to disappoint the Blake fans but the literal definition of a smear mmm campaign is the use of false allegations to discredit a public figure. Lively and her lawyers chose the terminology themselves.

Anonymous wrote:WF notes in their summary judgment response that they have sealed very little while in Lively’s response nearly everything is sealed. The response further notes that her own evidence contradicts her claims and the pervasive sealing suggests awareness that it would not survive public scrutiny.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even a example of such an article.

Agreed, but she only has that one claim for defamation regarding Freedman. She's not claiming the other stories were false, but retaliatory, which is some clever lawyering and perhaps a stretch but has not been challenged. It would be like if a woman complained about SH and her bosses spread (true) gossip about her personal life and mistakes she'd made at work, to destroy her credibility. It could work, but the jury may be looking for falsehoods. Maybe Lively will ask for a ruling that WF can't make that argument.

Hasn’t been challenged? WF makes this argument in their summary judgment briefing—she hasn’t alleged a single falsehood made by any defendant in the course of the “smear” campaign.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even a example of such an article.

Why would you pay someone to spread stories, even if true, that make your employee look bad? What do you call that and why would you pay someone to help you do it?

She wasn’t their employee, and what you describe is not a “smear.”

DP. A claim for retaliation in this context can be about a former employee. This is why companies often have boiler plate language to provide about a former employee if contacted for a reference, for example. If an employee made a good faith complaint about working conditions while working for you, and then leaves, bad mouthing them to future employers could give rise to a retaliation claim.

So the question is not whether what Wayfarer did is a "smear" -- that's just the term used in the NYT article and has no legal relevance.

Rather, the question is whether (assuming for the moment that Lively's complaints during the production will be found to be protected activity) Wayfarer sought to retaliate against her for those complaints, by destroying her reputation, harming her career, or causing emotional pain and suffering.