Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Burke is worried because Liman may find the statute unconstitutional, at least with respect to federal courts. Seventh amendment requires that parties get a jury trial to decide damages. Statute doesn’t address that and Blake is trying to get damages without a trial.

But you don't address that by going on Megyn Kelly. And also, Liman could apply the 7th Amendment issues without finding the law itself unconstitutional. He could rule that the court is unable to apply 47.1 without a fact finder determining damages, and since all underlying litigation has been resolved, there is no opportunity to do this. This could limit the application of 47.1 in the future and influence how and when it is brought, but would not declare it unconstitutional.

And if that's your real concern, you make the exact argument I just outlined in an amicus brief to the court, citing legal precedence and making legal arguments.

You don't go on Megyn Kelly and Billy Bush.

What’s wrong with Megyn Kelly? She’s an actual survivor. We gotta stop gatekeeping who gets to be part of a movement based on our own biases. As Blake likes to say, people have multitudes lol. It could be that Burke is someone who looks at the facts of the case and doesn’t just subscribe to “believe all women” and that doesn’t make her less of an advocate.

Saying Jeffrey Epstein wasn't really a pedophile because the girls he trafficked were "barely legal" types instead of young children: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyWFf3d62hY&t=13s

Claiming blackface is fine and insisting "for the kids at home" that Santa and Jesus are "just white": https://www.npr.org/2018/10/26/660850278/today-drops-megyn-kelly

Claiming body shaming is good because "it works" and "some of us want to be shamed": https://people.com/tv/megyn-kellys-most-controversial-moments-from-insisting-santa-is-white-to-defending-blackface/

Saying Sandra Bland, a black woman killed by police during a routine traffic stop, would still be alive if she'd "just complied" with the cop who killed her: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/25/megyn-kelly-nbc-blackface-racist-comments-white-supremacy-column/1760679002/

And more. She has a history of racist, victim-blaming, intentionally divisive statements, at both Fox News and after. She also has a history of platforming questionable people, like frequently inviting racist cop Mark Fuhrman on her show as a law enforcement "expert", or when she allowed a staffer on her show to post a chiron calling Michelle Obama Barack's "baby mama."

She is not a good person and it is completely insane for a serious person who cares about victim's rights to decide to give their first interview on a controversial subject to Megyn Kelly. Like it does not compute. Especially when Kelly is established as a biased resource on the subject, as a client of Freedman's who has frequently featured members of Baldoni's team on her show but never given equal time to Blake's.

Well it’s been 24 hrs and no one has picked up the interview in mainstream media except tmz (which sanitized it), LA Mag and foreign press. I’ll gladly admit Megyn Kelly isn’t great if you’re willing to acknowledge the media is corrupt and protecting Blake. This is a pretty big story but most outlets are posting about Blake’s thirst trap picture or Ryan instead. And still we’re confused why she went on Megyn Kelly…

Of course Ryan’s clout is being used to mop up this mess. However, the fact is Blake is barely a celebrity. Very few people care about this inside baseball crap 18 months later. Blake and imo Ryan are old news.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Burke's interview with Flaa made no sense and was super weird.

Not going to quote long post, but it is funny how she is a law professor and the architect of this legislation and keeps saying "Oh, I didn't read the judge's decision, it was like 150 pages! I just assumed from the CNN article that the judge ruled there was malice and stuff under 47.1." Seriously?!

I think she's just a grifter who was happy to hitch her pet project to Lively's name at the time when it sounded good and then there was some kind of pissing match with Esra Hudson so now she's working with the other side.

Couple things.

1. PP is distorting the timeline. The video request was last spring prior to Justin’s dismissal. Blake knew very little about the Blake at that point and hadn’t formed an opinion. Her view on Blake being bad for the bill is much more recent and the whole conversation with Esra Hudson about Blake wanting to take 47.1 national was after Blake’s own claims were dismissed.

2. A content creator pulled up the exact CNN article Burke had read and it was flat out wrong and did say the judge had “cited” 47.1 in his decision. It was sloppy likely pro Blake journalism but that’s been a mainstay in this case. In fairness to Burke, most people view outlets like cnn and the nyt as high authority sources. Those of us who have been following the media manipulation in this case know better but most people don’t.

DP but:

1. It still doesn't make sense that Burke is simultaneously mad that Lively is currently advocating for the legislation and also mad that Lively didn't make a video last year advocating for the legislation. And she also says that last year is when someone told her that Lively was like Amber Heard and therefore a problematic name to attach, yet that's also when they asked her to do the video. Lively was also engaged in active litigation at the time, preparing for her own deposition, and had become and extremely controversial and beleaguered public figure. It honestly doesn't sound like it would have been a good time for Lively to put her name on the bill and perhaps Lively understood that at the time.

It also just sounds like Burke never formed her own opinion of Lively, her case, or her use of 47.1 and was (and is) getting pulled around by what other people are telling her. This is weird to me because she's an attorney and is capable of sitting down, reading the filings in Lively's case, and drawing an educated conclusion on whether Lively is using 47.1 correctly or is someone Burke wants to align herself with. I don't understand why she's relying on what essentially sounds like gossip by people around her, instead of deciding for herself.

2. I find it incredible that someone who views herself as the author of 47.1 would hear about one of it's very first applications in court, in a super high profile case being covered by CNN and the NYT, and would simply rely on a CNN report of what the decision says. I've been a lawyer and worked with lawyers for 20+ years and I simply cannot imagine this. It wouldn't matter how busy I was or what else was going on -- I would be reading that decision the day it came out. I'd read it at 2am if I had to. Burke refers to this as her "life's work." And she's relying on a clipping from CNN to tell her what the judge said? It really strains belief.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Burke's interview with Flaa made no sense and was super weird.

Not going to quote long post, but it is funny how she is a law professor and the architect of this legislation and keeps saying "Oh, I didn't read the judge's decision, it was like 150 pages! I just assumed from the CNN article that the judge ruled there was malice and stuff under 47.1." Seriously?!

I think she's just a grifter who was happy to hitch her pet project to Lively's name at the time when it sounded good and then there was some kind of pissing match with Esra Hudson so now she's working with the other side.

Couple things.

1. PP is distorting the timeline. The video request was last spring prior to Justin’s dismissal. Blake knew very little about the Blake at that point and hadn’t formed an opinion. Her view on Blake being bad for the bill is much more recent and the whole conversation with Esra Hudson about Blake wanting to take 47.1 national was after Blake’s own claims were dismissed.

2. A content creator pulled up the exact CNN article Burke had read and it was flat out wrong and did say the judge had “cited” 47.1 in his decision. It was sloppy likely pro Blake journalism but that’s been a mainstay in this case. In fairness to Burke, most people view outlets like cnn and the nyt as high authority sources. Those of us who have been following the media manipulation in this case know better but most people don’t.

I agree with your point about the media in #2 but it's still crazy that she wouldn't even just like open the judge's decision and CTRL-F for 47.1 before opining. You can do that from a phone. If I wrote legislation and CNN reported that, I would be thrilled to dig in. So yeah, she just wanted a video from Blake because she was a celeb and seemed to be winning at that point.

Anonymous wrote:

Burke's interview with Flaa made no sense and was super weird.

Not going to quote long post, but it is funny how she is a law professor and the architect of this legislation and keeps saying "Oh, I didn't read the judge's decision, it was like 150 pages! I just assumed from the CNN article that the judge ruled there was malice and stuff under 47.1." Seriously?!

I think she's just a grifter who was happy to hitch her pet project to Lively's name at the time when it sounded good and then there was some kind of pissing match with Esra Hudson so now she's working with the other side.

Couple things.

1. PP is distorting the timeline. The video request was last spring prior to Justin’s dismissal. Blake knew very little about the Blake at that point and hadn’t formed an opinion. Her view on Blake being bad for the bill is much more recent and the whole conversation with Esra Hudson about Blake wanting to take 47.1 national was after Blake’s own claims were dismissed.

2. A content creator pulled up the exact CNN article Burke had read and it was flat out wrong and did say the judge had “cited” 47.1 in his decision. It was sloppy likely pro Blake journalism but that’s been a mainstay in this case. In fairness to Burke, most people view outlets like cnn and the nyt as high authority sources. Those of us who have been following the media manipulation in this case know better but most people don’t.

Burke's interview with Flaa made no sense and was super weird.

Not going to quote long post, but it is funny how she is a law professor and the architect of this legislation and keeps saying "Oh, I didn't read the judge's decision, it was like 150 pages! I just assumed from the CNN article that the judge ruled there was malice and stuff under 47.1." Seriously?!

I think she's just a grifter who was happy to hitch her pet project to Lively's name at the time when it sounded good and then there was some kind of pissing match with Esra Hudson so now she's working with the other side.

Anonymous wrote:I just saw Burke was also interviewed by Flaa. The Lively Slop Ecosystem World Tour. This was so predictable, I can't believe Lively and her team thought they could salvage something with 47.1.

Burke's interview with Flaa made no sense and was super weird. She complains that Lively is taking over 47.1 legislation in other states and boxing her out, is trying to take credit for the legislation in other states and is ruining Burke's "under the radar" strategy by during the legislation into just another "Met Gala" or "Fendi store" (she uses these specific terms which I found so strange, only someone who has followed this case closely on Reddit would understand the "Fendi store" reference). She also says that she doesn't want Blake associated with the legislation because someone last year told her that people view Blake as toxic like Amber Heard and she shouldn't want that sort of association with the legislation.

But then she complains that her organization or an affiliated one asked Blake to record a video and write a personal statement supporting the introduction of 47.1 in NY state and Blake declined to do so. So which is it? Blake is trying to take over the legislation and put her name all over it or Blake is not being sufficiently supportive or willing to put her name on the legislation?

She also talks about how her friends have been telling her bad stuff about Blake but don't tell her bad stuff about Baldoni. Are her friends... Reddit commenters? Because I feel confident based on what else she says that her friends don't actually have personal experiences with either of these people. So it's just based on gossip? It all feels circular and weird.

Also Flaa is an atrocious interviewer. None of this is journalism. I guess that's why they call them "content creators." It is content. But not sure what else. I certainly don't feel like I learned anything or understand what is going on.

I just saw Burke was also interviewed by Flaa. The Lively Slop Ecosystem World Tour. This was so predictable, I can't believe Lively and her team thought they could salvage something with 47.1.

Anonymous wrote:What's next, Daily Mail?

Will Tucker Carlson and Clavicular also weigh in? Hmmmmm.

Anonymous wrote:It’s starting to get picked up!

https://nypost.com/2026/06/03/opinion/blake-lively-is-hell-bent-on-justifying-perceived-victimhood/

Headline is bad for Blake -“Blake Lively is so hell-bent on justifying her perceived victimhood, she’s now angered actual victims”

That's an opinion piece. Not a news article. And it's by a right winger.

Here's her prior headline: "Self-righteous mutiny at ‘60 Minutes’ isn’t about saving the show — it’s about sabotage and being a martyr for the rotting left"

I can only assume she writes these terrible headlines herself because the copyediting staff probably refuses to deal with her.

What's next, Daily Mail?

It’s starting to get picked up!

https://nypost.com/2026/06/03/opinion/blake-lively-is-hell-bent-on-justifying-perceived-victimhood/

Headline is bad for Blake -“Blake Lively is so hell-bent on justifying her perceived victimhood, she’s now angered actual victims”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Burke is worried because Liman may find the statute unconstitutional, at least with respect to federal courts. Seventh amendment requires that parties get a jury trial to decide damages. Statute doesn’t address that and Blake is trying to get damages without a trial.

But you don't address that by going on Megyn Kelly. And also, Liman could apply the 7th Amendment issues without finding the law itself unconstitutional. He could rule that the court is unable to apply 47.1 without a fact finder determining damages, and since all underlying litigation has been resolved, there is no opportunity to do this. This could limit the application of 47.1 in the future and influence how and when it is brought, but would not declare it unconstitutional.

And if that's your real concern, you make the exact argument I just outlined in an amicus brief to the court, citing legal precedence and making legal arguments.

You don't go on Megyn Kelly and Billy Bush.

What’s wrong with Megyn Kelly? She’s an actual survivor. We gotta stop gatekeeping who gets to be part of a movement based on our own biases. As Blake likes to say, people have multitudes lol. It could be that Burke is someone who looks at the facts of the case and doesn’t just subscribe to “believe all women” and that doesn’t make her less of an advocate.

Saying Jeffrey Epstein wasn't really a pedophile because the girls he trafficked were "barely legal" types instead of young children: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyWFf3d62hY&t=13s

Claiming blackface is fine and insisting "for the kids at home" that Santa and Jesus are "just white": https://www.npr.org/2018/10/26/660850278/today-drops-megyn-kelly

Claiming body shaming is good because "it works" and "some of us want to be shamed": https://people.com/tv/megyn-kellys-most-controversial-moments-from-insisting-santa-is-white-to-defending-blackface/

Saying Sandra Bland, a black woman killed by police during a routine traffic stop, would still be alive if she'd "just complied" with the cop who killed her: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/25/megyn-kelly-nbc-blackface-racist-comments-white-supremacy-column/1760679002/

And more. She has a history of racist, victim-blaming, intentionally divisive statements, at both Fox News and after. She also has a history of platforming questionable people, like frequently inviting racist cop Mark Fuhrman on her show as a law enforcement "expert", or when she allowed a staffer on her show to post a chiron calling Michelle Obama Barack's "baby mama."

She is not a good person and it is completely insane for a serious person who cares about victim's rights to decide to give their first interview on a controversial subject to Megyn Kelly. Like it does not compute. Especially when Kelly is established as a biased resource on the subject, as a client of Freedman's who has frequently featured members of Baldoni's team on her show but never given equal time to Blake's.

Well it’s been 24 hrs and no one has picked up the interview in mainstream media except tmz (which sanitized it), LA Mag and foreign press. I’ll gladly admit Megyn Kelly isn’t great if you’re willing to acknowledge the media is corrupt and protecting Blake. This is a pretty big story but most outlets are posting about Blake’s thirst trap picture or Ryan instead. And still we’re confused why she went on Megyn Kelly…

I think the reason mainstream media isn't picking it up is because she chose to announce it on Megyn Kelly and her argument is muddy and weird. So she loudly supported Blake when she filed the case, and cheered when Baldoni's case was thrown out, but now disagrees with Blakes' use of 47.1. Okay, fine, but what bearing does this have on the case? None, really.

It would be different if it was a group of 47.1 advocates speaking out against Blake. That's what happened with the amicus briefs, only it was on the other side. When you have an entire advocacy community saying "this is what we think as a group" that's pretty compelling. But this is one person, and she comes off like a weird flip-flopper, and she's talking about it on questionable outlets that aren't respected by real journalists. That's why no one else is talking about it, and that's why TMZ, which is a tabloid but is pretty cautious/responsible about only printing verifiable info, gave it fairly cursory coverage. It's not actually a big story.

There’s a lot of rationalizing here. She is the author of the bill turning on Blake. It is a big story. WME has pull. Just admit it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Burke is worried because Liman may find the statute unconstitutional, at least with respect to federal courts. Seventh amendment requires that parties get a jury trial to decide damages. Statute doesn’t address that and Blake is trying to get damages without a trial.

But you don't address that by going on Megyn Kelly. And also, Liman could apply the 7th Amendment issues without finding the law itself unconstitutional. He could rule that the court is unable to apply 47.1 without a fact finder determining damages, and since all underlying litigation has been resolved, there is no opportunity to do this. This could limit the application of 47.1 in the future and influence how and when it is brought, but would not declare it unconstitutional.

And if that's your real concern, you make the exact argument I just outlined in an amicus brief to the court, citing legal precedence and making legal arguments.

You don't go on Megyn Kelly and Billy Bush.

What’s wrong with Megyn Kelly? She’s an actual survivor. We gotta stop gatekeeping who gets to be part of a movement based on our own biases. As Blake likes to say, people have multitudes lol. It could be that Burke is someone who looks at the facts of the case and doesn’t just subscribe to “believe all women” and that doesn’t make her less of an advocate.

Saying Jeffrey Epstein wasn't really a pedophile because the girls he trafficked were "barely legal" types instead of young children: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyWFf3d62hY&t=13s

Claiming blackface is fine and insisting "for the kids at home" that Santa and Jesus are "just white": https://www.npr.org/2018/10/26/660850278/today-drops-megyn-kelly

Claiming body shaming is good because "it works" and "some of us want to be shamed": https://people.com/tv/megyn-kellys-most-controversial-moments-from-insisting-santa-is-white-to-defending-blackface/

Saying Sandra Bland, a black woman killed by police during a routine traffic stop, would still be alive if she'd "just complied" with the cop who killed her: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/25/megyn-kelly-nbc-blackface-racist-comments-white-supremacy-column/1760679002/

And more. She has a history of racist, victim-blaming, intentionally divisive statements, at both Fox News and after. She also has a history of platforming questionable people, like frequently inviting racist cop Mark Fuhrman on her show as a law enforcement "expert", or when she allowed a staffer on her show to post a chiron calling Michelle Obama Barack's "baby mama."

She is not a good person and it is completely insane for a serious person who cares about victim's rights to decide to give their first interview on a controversial subject to Megyn Kelly. Like it does not compute. Especially when Kelly is established as a biased resource on the subject, as a client of Freedman's who has frequently featured members of Baldoni's team on her show but never given equal time to Blake's.

Well it’s been 24 hrs and no one has picked up the interview in mainstream media except tmz (which sanitized it), LA Mag and foreign press. I’ll gladly admit Megyn Kelly isn’t great if you’re willing to acknowledge the media is corrupt and protecting Blake. This is a pretty big story but most outlets are posting about Blake’s thirst trap picture or Ryan instead. And still we’re confused why she went on Megyn Kelly…

I think the reason mainstream media isn't picking it up is because she chose to announce it on Megyn Kelly and her argument is muddy and weird. So she loudly supported Blake when she filed the case, and cheered when Baldoni's case was thrown out, but now disagrees with Blakes' use of 47.1. Okay, fine, but what bearing does this have on the case? None, really.

It would be different if it was a group of 47.1 advocates speaking out against Blake. That's what happened with the amicus briefs, only it was on the other side. When you have an entire advocacy community saying "this is what we think as a group" that's pretty compelling. But this is one person, and she comes off like a weird flip-flopper, and she's talking about it on questionable outlets that aren't respected by real journalists. That's why no one else is talking about it, and that's why TMZ, which is a tabloid but is pretty cautious/responsible about only printing verifiable info, gave it fairly cursory coverage. It's not actually a big story.

No matter how you slice it this is not good for Blake. Either people are going to see Burke as a true advocate who once supported Blake and now has changed her mind after all the facts have come out and she thinks she is abusing the law, so Blake has one less advocate on her side.

Or people are going to decide she never should’ve been taken seriously anyway and who cares if she supported Blake she’s just an opportunistic flake who hangs with Megan Kelly.

Either way it’s one less person in the advocacy community supporting Blake.

Which is exactly why she posts dumb things on her Instagram story which is so transparent and stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Burke is worried because Liman may find the statute unconstitutional, at least with respect to federal courts. Seventh amendment requires that parties get a jury trial to decide damages. Statute doesn’t address that and Blake is trying to get damages without a trial.

But you don't address that by going on Megyn Kelly. And also, Liman could apply the 7th Amendment issues without finding the law itself unconstitutional. He could rule that the court is unable to apply 47.1 without a fact finder determining damages, and since all underlying litigation has been resolved, there is no opportunity to do this. This could limit the application of 47.1 in the future and influence how and when it is brought, but would not declare it unconstitutional.

And if that's your real concern, you make the exact argument I just outlined in an amicus brief to the court, citing legal precedence and making legal arguments.

You don't go on Megyn Kelly and Billy Bush.

What’s wrong with Megyn Kelly? She’s an actual survivor. We gotta stop gatekeeping who gets to be part of a movement based on our own biases. As Blake likes to say, people have multitudes lol. It could be that Burke is someone who looks at the facts of the case and doesn’t just subscribe to “believe all women” and that doesn’t make her less of an advocate.

Saying Jeffrey Epstein wasn't really a pedophile because the girls he trafficked were "barely legal" types instead of young children: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyWFf3d62hY&t=13s

Claiming blackface is fine and insisting "for the kids at home" that Santa and Jesus are "just white": https://www.npr.org/2018/10/26/660850278/today-drops-megyn-kelly

Claiming body shaming is good because "it works" and "some of us want to be shamed": https://people.com/tv/megyn-kellys-most-controversial-moments-from-insisting-santa-is-white-to-defending-blackface/

Saying Sandra Bland, a black woman killed by police during a routine traffic stop, would still be alive if she'd "just complied" with the cop who killed her: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/25/megyn-kelly-nbc-blackface-racist-comments-white-supremacy-column/1760679002/

And more. She has a history of racist, victim-blaming, intentionally divisive statements, at both Fox News and after. She also has a history of platforming questionable people, like frequently inviting racist cop Mark Fuhrman on her show as a law enforcement "expert", or when she allowed a staffer on her show to post a chiron calling Michelle Obama Barack's "baby mama."

She is not a good person and it is completely insane for a serious person who cares about victim's rights to decide to give their first interview on a controversial subject to Megyn Kelly. Like it does not compute. Especially when Kelly is established as a biased resource on the subject, as a client of Freedman's who has frequently featured members of Baldoni's team on her show but never given equal time to Blake's.

Well it’s been 24 hrs and no one has picked up the interview in mainstream media except tmz (which sanitized it), LA Mag and foreign press. I’ll gladly admit Megyn Kelly isn’t great if you’re willing to acknowledge the media is corrupt and protecting Blake. This is a pretty big story but most outlets are posting about Blake’s thirst trap picture or Ryan instead. And still we’re confused why she went on Megyn Kelly…