Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In court, will the NYTimes have to reveal when they started working on the article? What other specific things can we expect to come to light?

If justin’s case survives a MTD, yes, they will. I suspect that the NYT might file an anti SLAPP motion, but I’m not sure. My guess is justin’s case will survive those early motions and discovery will begin. And yes, the NYT will have to show timing and the internal process that led to the story being published, what they did to corroborate her story, what they did and didn’t do and said about seeking the other side’s perspective, etc.

I’m fairly alone on this thread on thinking that Justin has a real case against the NYT. This was an explosive story. I don’t think it will be hard to show they had a real confirmation bias going in to this story, their MeToo journalist wanted to fit this into another metoo framework with a PR twist, and they ignored proper journalism standards… and there was significant harm to people, including people who are arguably private figures.

But it’s also been a very wise PR move as well, and I’m sure it’s unsettled the Times and that reporter.

I don’t disagree that this will beat a MTD unless the judge has a very restrictive take on the showing needed for actual malice. but “confirmation bias” isn’t a grounds to show actual bias, and it’s not clear that “proper journalism standards” even exist such to show that they were recklessly or intentionally violated.

Yes, there are journalistic standards that publications like the Times follow. They certainly have internal rules of the road that they are supposed to follow. The Times even used to have a ‘standards’ editor as a separate role. Things like getting comment, how many sources to use and what sort of info is needed to verify statements, whether they can run a story with only off the record sources, that sort of thing. I suspect they relaxed them here, hoping they could hide behind this being a published complaint (and therefore a ‘fair report’ which gives them some protections). That’s why they came out hard and fast in a statement to respond to the allegation that they had the complaint early and that this was collaborative with BL.

These aren’t legal standards, of course. But if this gets to a jury, the Plaintiffs will introduce evidence showing how sloppy and different from usual standards this journalistic process was, how they might have willfully ignored red flags in pursuit of a juicy angle, etc. All of this will be used to show state of mind- eg whether they were negligent or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.

What are your guessing odds this gets to a jury?

Hmm, maybe 20%. It’s interesting for sure. The NYT has a fairly standard policy to fight every defamation case. The Ps will have to navigate the Times repeated efforts to get this thrown out on the law (fair report, anti Slapp etc) but from what I can see of Bryan Freedman, he is playing this very well so far and he may bring in extremely skilled P side defamation attorneys, so I suspect he can cross those hurdles, especially because with all this interest and publicity and an overall diminishment on people’s trust of ‘main stream media’, there will be pressure on the judge to allow this to move to a jury. The judge will also know these Ps will likely appeal any decisions he/she makes to get this thrown out.

And once it gets to a jury, it’s really the P’s case to win. Juries are fickle, they decide who they like and don’t like, and they are not always great at applying legal standards (actual malice, etc).

This case is so fascinating to me

I appreciate your analysis; I find it endlessly fascinating too.

In the original complaint I am sure it said something along the lines of how they were blindsided by her list and that they had no idea that there were issues before the strike.

But in the timeline they posted, it was only a few days of filming before she called the Sony execs and they had an on set meeting. She was uncomfortable from almost day 1 and raised it right away.

Both of them continued to send their obnoxious emails to each other but her actions show that they all knew she felt uncomfortable from the beginning of filming so the list should't really have been a surprise at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In court, will the NYTimes have to reveal when they started working on the article? What other specific things can we expect to come to light?

If justin’s case survives a MTD, yes, they will. I suspect that the NYT might file an anti SLAPP motion, but I’m not sure. My guess is justin’s case will survive those early motions and discovery will begin. And yes, the NYT will have to show timing and the internal process that led to the story being published, what they did to corroborate her story, what they did and didn’t do and said about seeking the other side’s perspective, etc.

I’m fairly alone on this thread on thinking that Justin has a real case against the NYT. This was an explosive story. I don’t think it will be hard to show they had a real confirmation bias going in to this story, their MeToo journalist wanted to fit this into another metoo framework with a PR twist, and they ignored proper journalism standards… and there was significant harm to people, including people who are arguably private figures.

But it’s also been a very wise PR move as well, and I’m sure it’s unsettled the Times and that reporter.

I don’t disagree that this will beat a MTD unless the judge has a very restrictive take on the showing needed for actual malice. but “confirmation bias” isn’t a grounds to show actual bias, and it’s not clear that “proper journalism standards” even exist such to show that they were recklessly or intentionally violated.

Yes, there are journalistic standards that publications like the Times follow. They certainly have internal rules of the road that they are supposed to follow. The Times even used to have a ‘standards’ editor as a separate role. Things like getting comment, how many sources to use and what sort of info is needed to verify statements, whether they can run a story with only off the record sources, that sort of thing. I suspect they relaxed them here, hoping they could hide behind this being a published complaint (and therefore a ‘fair report’ which gives them some protections). That’s why they came out hard and fast in a statement to respond to the allegation that they had the complaint early and that this was collaborative with BL.

These aren’t legal standards, of course. But if this gets to a jury, the Plaintiffs will introduce evidence showing how sloppy and different from usual standards this journalistic process was, how they might have willfully ignored red flags in pursuit of a juicy angle, etc. All of this will be used to show state of mind- eg whether they were negligent or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.

it would take a LOT to prove those are hard & fast standards that the Times violated here, such that it constitutes recklessness. Because a) there are no clear standards on things like how long to give for comment and b) it’s not even clear the Times would have violated that.

The law makes this very hard for a good reason. If journalists can be sued by public figures too easily then their ability to report (and make mistakes) would be severely curtailed and the public would suffer.

It does not appear she felt uncomfortable on set at all.

So I’m watching the abc Hulu special because why not - I didn’t know BL did a film with Woody Allen. I just can’t reconcile that someone who would work with WA truly believes her own complaints.

Anonymous wrote:If Reynolds literally went around telling studios "Baldoni is a sexual predator, don't hire him" that's grounds for defamation and tortious interference.

If it was "My wife was very uncomfortable working with Baldoni on set. It was a terrible experience and she/we wouldn't work with him again" that is probably legally protected opinion.

My guess is that it was somewhere in between. I am certain he used hyperbolic language but I think it's going to be hard for Baldoni to show that Reynolds actually accused him of something purely false. It's going to be something like, "He treated Blake horribly, you should hear some of the stuff he did. I am beginning to think there might really be something wrong with him, like he might be some kind of sexual predator or something. Especially when he's out there calling himself a male feminist. It's manipulative."

And I think a statement like that is going to be very hard to get ruled as "defamatory" if there was any truth to any of Lively's accusations, even if nothing he did could be considered sexual assault. It appears she felt uncomfortable on set, and it appears he was at times kind of weird and inappropriate. That would be a hugely hyperbolic way of describing that situation but not exactly false either.

So I’m watching the abc Hulu special because why not - I didn’t know BL did a film with Woody Allen. I just can’t reconcile that someone who would work with WA truly believes her own complaints.

Anonymous wrote:I don't really have an opinion yet about the case but what I do know from everything I have read and seen is that I really don't like either Blake or Justin as people. Both are obnoxious.

+1, I am surprised by the posts on here defending Justin like he's some wronged innocent. He sounds like an opportunist who found a nice niche for himself ("I'm a *sensitive* guy who really gets it") and capitalized on it, but it all comes off as very disingenuous to me. Also his book, podcast, and this movie sound like garbage so I can't help but roll my eyes about the comments talking earnestly about how he just want to address toxic masculinity or tell stories of abuse. GMAFB.

But I've also never liked Lively and am totally unsurprised that she's a diva on set and impossible to work with, or that she goes running to her husband to fix things for her when she doesn't get her way. I have also encountered dysfunctional couples like this twice in real life, both in semi-professional contexts where the women would pout and play the victim and then their husbands would come down hard on people but justify it as "protecting" their wives. It's equally annoying as Justin's schtick, and probably ultimately more consequential.

Ugh. I have zero interest in ever paying money to see anything any of these people ever make again. There are lots of talented artists out there who aren't like this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In court, will the NYTimes have to reveal when they started working on the article? What other specific things can we expect to come to light?

If justin’s case survives a MTD, yes, they will. I suspect that the NYT might file an anti SLAPP motion, but I’m not sure. My guess is justin’s case will survive those early motions and discovery will begin. And yes, the NYT will have to show timing and the internal process that led to the story being published, what they did to corroborate her story, what they did and didn’t do and said about seeking the other side’s perspective, etc.

I’m fairly alone on this thread on thinking that Justin has a real case against the NYT. This was an explosive story. I don’t think it will be hard to show they had a real confirmation bias going in to this story, their MeToo journalist wanted to fit this into another metoo framework with a PR twist, and they ignored proper journalism standards… and there was significant harm to people, including people who are arguably private figures.

But it’s also been a very wise PR move as well, and I’m sure it’s unsettled the Times and that reporter.

I don’t disagree that this will beat a MTD unless the judge has a very restrictive take on the showing needed for actual malice. but “confirmation bias” isn’t a grounds to show actual bias, and it’s not clear that “proper journalism standards” even exist such to show that they were recklessly or intentionally violated.

Yes, there are journalistic standards that publications like the Times follow. They certainly have internal rules of the road that they are supposed to follow. The Times even used to have a ‘standards’ editor as a separate role. Things like getting comment, how many sources to use and what sort of info is needed to verify statements, whether they can run a story with only off the record sources, that sort of thing. I suspect they relaxed them here, hoping they could hide behind this being a published complaint (and therefore a ‘fair report’ which gives them some protections). That’s why they came out hard and fast in a statement to respond to the allegation that they had the complaint early and that this was collaborative with BL.

These aren’t legal standards, of course. But if this gets to a jury, the Plaintiffs will introduce evidence showing how sloppy and different from usual standards this journalistic process was, how they might have willfully ignored red flags in pursuit of a juicy angle, etc. All of this will be used to show state of mind- eg whether they were negligent or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.

What are your guessing odds this gets to a jury?

Hmm, maybe 20%. It’s interesting for sure. The NYT has a fairly standard policy to fight every defamation case. The Ps will have to navigate the Times repeated efforts to get this thrown out on the law (fair report, anti Slapp etc) but from what I can see of Bryan Freedman, he is playing this very well so far and he may bring in extremely skilled P side defamation attorneys, so I suspect he can cross those hurdles, especially because with all this interest and publicity and an overall diminishment on people’s trust of ‘main stream media’, there will be pressure on the judge to allow this to move to a jury. The judge will also know these Ps will likely appeal any decisions he/she makes to get this thrown out.

And once it gets to a jury, it’s really the P’s case to win. Juries are fickle, they decide who they like and don’t like, and they are not always great at applying legal standards (actual malice, etc).

This case is so fascinating to me

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In court, will the NYTimes have to reveal when they started working on the article? What other specific things can we expect to come to light?

If justin’s case survives a MTD, yes, they will. I suspect that the NYT might file an anti SLAPP motion, but I’m not sure. My guess is justin’s case will survive those early motions and discovery will begin. And yes, the NYT will have to show timing and the internal process that led to the story being published, what they did to corroborate her story, what they did and didn’t do and said about seeking the other side’s perspective, etc.

I’m fairly alone on this thread on thinking that Justin has a real case against the NYT. This was an explosive story. I don’t think it will be hard to show they had a real confirmation bias going in to this story, their MeToo journalist wanted to fit this into another metoo framework with a PR twist, and they ignored proper journalism standards… and there was significant harm to people, including people who are arguably private figures.

But it’s also been a very wise PR move as well, and I’m sure it’s unsettled the Times and that reporter.

I don’t disagree that this will beat a MTD unless the judge has a very restrictive take on the showing needed for actual malice. but “confirmation bias” isn’t a grounds to show actual bias, and it’s not clear that “proper journalism standards” even exist such to show that they were recklessly or intentionally violated.

Yes, there are journalistic standards that publications like the Times follow. They certainly have internal rules of the road that they are supposed to follow. The Times even used to have a ‘standards’ editor as a separate role. Things like getting comment, how many sources to use and what sort of info is needed to verify statements, whether they can run a story with only off the record sources, that sort of thing. I suspect they relaxed them here, hoping they could hide behind this being a published complaint (and therefore a ‘fair report’ which gives them some protections). That’s why they came out hard and fast in a statement to respond to the allegation that they had the complaint early and that this was collaborative with BL.

These aren’t legal standards, of course. But if this gets to a jury, the Plaintiffs will introduce evidence showing how sloppy and different from usual standards this journalistic process was, how they might have willfully ignored red flags in pursuit of a juicy angle, etc. All of this will be used to show state of mind- eg whether they were negligent or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.

What are your guessing odds this gets to a jury?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really have an opinion yet about the case but what I do know from everything I have read and seen is that I really don't like either Blake or Justin as people. Both are obnoxious.

How is he obnoxious?

This story is exactly like Bad Art Friend. Smug mugs who came to it in December decided he’s guilty of stuff he quite evidently never ever did. His Dawn-like sincerity is a flaw against Lively’s polished like Sonya’s gross turd character. At least it explains to me why he can’t settle, and to be grateful from afar that his film partners have the money to push this hard.

I find him very fake, insincere, and smarmy in the documents. And then I saw his proposal video (that was all about him) and I decided smarmy, fake, and obnoxious.

There is nothing sincere or genuine about him. He says whatever he thinks people want to hear and is so over the top most of the time.

If you haven't seen the video where he proposes to his now wife, enjoy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVTr5MNa_8Y&t=377s

I don’t watch things that I know from the outset will irritate me, so.

Anonymous wrote:Blake and Ryan also tried to ruin Jamey Heath per the docs. Let’s not forget him.

Also did anyone read the prepared apology that Blake and Ryan tried to force Baldoni and Heath to sign? I am so glad that they refused.

Me, too. That was so outrageous. Reynolds and Lively are such bad people! It’s actually still shocking seeing their acts as written out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In court, will the NYTimes have to reveal when they started working on the article? What other specific things can we expect to come to light?

If justin’s case survives a MTD, yes, they will. I suspect that the NYT might file an anti SLAPP motion, but I’m not sure. My guess is justin’s case will survive those early motions and discovery will begin. And yes, the NYT will have to show timing and the internal process that led to the story being published, what they did to corroborate her story, what they did and didn’t do and said about seeking the other side’s perspective, etc.

I’m fairly alone on this thread on thinking that Justin has a real case against the NYT. This was an explosive story. I don’t think it will be hard to show they had a real confirmation bias going in to this story, their MeToo journalist wanted to fit this into another metoo framework with a PR twist, and they ignored proper journalism standards… and there was significant harm to people, including people who are arguably private figures.

But it’s also been a very wise PR move as well, and I’m sure it’s unsettled the Times and that reporter.

I don’t disagree that this will beat a MTD unless the judge has a very restrictive take on the showing needed for actual malice. but “confirmation bias” isn’t a grounds to show actual bias, and it’s not clear that “proper journalism standards” even exist such to show that they were recklessly or intentionally violated.

Yes, there are journalistic standards that publications like the Times follow. They certainly have internal rules of the road that they are supposed to follow. The Times even used to have a ‘standards’ editor as a separate role. Things like getting comment, how many sources to use and what sort of info is needed to verify statements, whether they can run a story with only off the record sources, that sort of thing. I suspect they relaxed them here, hoping they could hide behind this being a published complaint (and therefore a ‘fair report’ which gives them some protections). That’s why they came out hard and fast in a statement to respond to the allegation that they had the complaint early and that this was collaborative with BL.

These aren’t legal standards, of course. But if this gets to a jury, the Plaintiffs will introduce evidence showing how sloppy and different from usual standards this journalistic process was, how they might have willfully ignored red flags in pursuit of a juicy angle, etc. All of this will be used to show state of mind- eg whether they were negligent or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.