Anonymous wrote:Has anyone actually looked at any of the Baldoni "lifestyle" videos he has posted on youtube about his family etc? Someone here earlier posted his "proposal" video to his wife and ... ewww. I couldn't watch the whole thing. It had nothing to do with his fiance, and was completely self absorbed, putting him in like 5 different scenarios and making a proposal (he's in a boy band, in a flash mob, in a mission impossible set, etc). This makes me think he is really mainly an actor/director trying to get (more) famous and posting his movies online pretending they're his life. So he films all these and then films his wife's reaction watching them -- and that's how he proposed to her, by making himself the absolute center of attention? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVTr5MNa_8Y

Doesn't this give anyone else the Ick? He seems, at a minimum, exhausting.

Yes, all of the people involved are annoying and exhausting. They’re all literally obnoxious “theater kids.” But the scammers appear to be Blake and Ryan.

Anonymous wrote:All parties involved are sanctimonious snakes, however we must determine who is less evil. That being said, I will never watch another movie including BL or RR.

This is true. But from everything I’ve read the Justin guy, while he probably is a typical Hollywood phony baloney, he was walking on egg shells around Blake, who was clearly trying to bait him like an unreformed sorority girl scammer. This was a set-up scheme from the very get go, imo.

BL should have never been cast in this movie. It was a mistake. She is much too matronly to be playing a 20 something. Did you see her wardrobe? I mean, is this a joke?

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone actually looked at any of the Baldoni "lifestyle" videos he has posted on youtube about his family etc? Someone here earlier posted his "proposal" video to his wife and ... ewww. I couldn't watch the whole thing. It had nothing to do with his fiance, and was completely self absorbed, putting him in like 5 different scenarios and making a proposal (he's in a boy band, in a flash mob, in a mission impossible set, etc). This makes me think he is really mainly an actor/director trying to get (more) famous and posting his movies online pretending they're his life. So he films all these and then films his wife's reaction watching them -- and that's how he proposed to her, by making himself the absolute center of attention? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVTr5MNa_8Y

Doesn't this give anyone else the Ick? He seems, at a minimum, exhausting.

He is icky and exhausting and very unattractive, but BL and RR are worse. They are conniving manipulators. They are gross.

Has anyone actually looked at any of the Baldoni "lifestyle" videos he has posted on youtube about his family etc? Someone here earlier posted his "proposal" video to his wife and ... ewww. I couldn't watch the whole thing. It had nothing to do with his fiance, and was completely self absorbed, putting him in like 5 different scenarios and making a proposal (he's in a boy band, in a flash mob, in a mission impossible set, etc). This makes me think he is really mainly an actor/director trying to get (more) famous and posting his movies online pretending they're his life. So he films all these and then films his wife's reaction watching them -- and that's how he proposed to her, by making himself the absolute center of attention? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVTr5MNa_8Y

Doesn't this give anyone else the Ick? He seems, at a minimum, exhausting.

Anonymous wrote:One of the PP’s asked about whether it’s been shown BL actually lied. So I thought I’d break down some of the SH allegations (trying to take my mind off some other stuff):

Wayfair made her uncomfortable when either he or Jaime:

—Asked her trainer for her weight.
Seems like she was offended (since RR was also upset), but most likely Baldoni was not intending to fat-shame her, given all the times he encouraged her not to worry about her weight. He claims he was trying to prepare for a lift scene. She appears to have been mistaken (or lied?) about there not being a lift in the script.

—Sent her to a weight loss specialist.
She could have been offended when she saw this person’s website, or she could have mischaracterized this one. In any case, he has evidence showing that he was trying to get her probiotics, not weight loss medication.

—Approached her about being nude during birth scene.
Unclear what happened here. They probably did ask her, given they were toting around that video, but she did not end up being fully nude.

—Showed her a video of a woman giving birth
This did happen, and she did respond in a way that shows she was uncomfortable/thought it was porn. Video was put away after she said she would watch it later.

—Allowed people to wander on set during birthing scene in which she was mostly nude.
Baldoni shows set marked as closed, but we don’t know what happened on the day. There is some he said/she said here about who was present. There is also disagreement about what she was actually wearing. Either she was mostly nude with a thin strip of fabric “down there,” or she was wearing a pregnancy belly and hospital gown up top and black briefs on the bottom.

—Engaged in unscripted kissing.
This probably did happen, as JB claims both parties did this. The leaked video of the dance sequence shows he did kiss her neck, but she also mischaracterized at least some of what happened. (E.g., she insisted they talk throughout the unscripted scene but then also said there was no reason for him to talk in the unscripted scene.)

—Used the word “sexy” to describe her outfit.
This did happen, and Baldoni acknowledges BL was offended when he said it, so much so that he immediately apologized. We also know BL used this term around him to describe her outfits. But we do not know that BL ever used that term to describe outfits worn by members of the opposite sex.

Hired his friend to play the OBGYN.
This one seems like it was thrown in to establish a pattern of putting her in uncomfortable situations. The guy was a professional actor, so kinda think this one’s on her to act like a professional in return, but YMMV.

Walked in on her breastfeeding, and at least one time made eye contact with her (after asking the party to turn around).
We don’t really know for sure. We know she invited Baldoni in at least once. We know Heath was in her trailer while she was breastfeeding at least once and that he apologized “if” he inadvertently made eye contact.

What am I missing? I didn’t include anything that seemed to be outside the bounds of SH or anything that happened post production.

This is a good rundown, but a few things:

- The allegation against Heath is not that he walked in on her breastfeeding. It's that she was in the makeup trailer having body makeup removed from her chest (presumably like around her neckline area but she was apparently naked from the waist up) and Heath wanted to meet with her to discuss her complaint about Baldoni's behavior. According to her complaint, she asked if the meeting could wait until she was done and Heath insisted on staying, so she asked him to turn around. Lively then alleges she looked up and he was looking at her after she'd both asked him to leave and to turn around. Baldoni's complaint doesn't really challenge the basic facts here but says Lively was the one who was making it hard for them to find a time to meet, and also claims that Lively later joked about the incident and seemed okay with it.

- Lively also alleges that Baldoni and Heath spoke about porn on set multiple times and confessed to having porn addictions in the past. Lively says this came up multiple times and that she at one point told Baldoni that she had never seen porn, in an effort to get him to stop discussing it with her. Lively claims that Baldoni then revealed this to others in the cast/crew in a way that felt he was making ridiculing Lively for not having seen porn, or that he didn't believe it. Baldoni claims the discussions about porn only happened in relation to conversations about the film (I guess "male gaze" or whatever) and also says that Heath has never had a porn addiction and never claimed to have one on set.

- Lively alleges that one night she and Baldoni were sharing a car back to the city (Lively's assistant was also in the car) and that Baldoni shared with her a story about having been sexually assaulted by an ex-girlfriend. She claims he said this experience made him reflect on his own prior experiences with women and to ask himself if he'd always obtained consent from women he'd been with and that he hadn't. Baldoni claims this is a mischaracterization of what he said and that he was only talking about his experience being sexually assaulted by his girlfriend and did not say he'd had nonconsensual sex with women.

- Also part of Lively's claim regarding the on-camera intimacy is that she says Baldoni/Heath failed to involve an intimacy coordinator for scenes that weren't scripted as having intimacy but that she felt crossed the line into intimate scenes. Specifically the dancing scene he's released video of, and the birth scene which she said should have involved the intimacy coordinator if they were planning to push for nudity or partial nudity. Baldoni characterizes these scenes differently and says Lively was "fully clothed" in the birthing scene and also that the kissing in the dance scene did not rise to the level of requiring a coordinator. Baldoni also says Lively refused to meet with the intimacy coordinator during pre-production and that some of her objections to Baldoni related to him relaying things the intimacy coordinator had suggested (like apparently the IC suggested an oral sex sequence that was not in the script and when Baldoni related this to Lively, she felt it was an example of him trying to increase the level of intimacy or add "off script" intimacy).

- Lively also alleges some non-harassment stuff that I do think is still relevant because it raises the issue of whether she was justifiably uncomfortable on set and whether her demands prior to returning to set were reasonable. The biggest one is that she says Baldoni repeatedly told her that he'd been communicating with her dead father (who died in 2021) even after she asked him not to.

My conclusion on seeing this list (in the prior post and in mine) is that Lively's case is fairly thin as it's based on her interpretation of incidents that could certainly be read another way. And Baldoni's complaint mostly offers other, less alarming, characterizations of these exchanges.

However even after reading his characterizations of these incidents, I don't get the sense that she is "lying." Some of this stuff is weird and inappropriate even if not done with the intent to harass or violate boundaries. Other stuff seems like not a big deal and it seems like Lively overreacted. There definitely seems to have been miscommunication at various times and I sense these are two people who don't communicate or listen very well.

Mostly it makes me wonder what other people felt or saw on the set or if present during these interactions. I think it's a tough one because a film set is not a normal workplace. But I also think even on a film set, you shouldn't have to give up your privacy and you should be able to put some boundaries. It's very much a she said/he said and I don't feel either of them has made a super compelling case that they are right and the other person is wrong. There is enough there that I think it's possible Lively was harassed or at least made to feel very uncomfortable and that Wayfarer insufficiently responded to her complaints. I also think it's possible she's overreacting to a lot of this. But it could go either way. I wasn't there. It's very hard to judge.

I don't think Baldoni has come up with enough evidence to prove she manufactured this whole thing. He's characterizing the situations differently but not necessarily challenging the underlying facts. It's a tough one.

All parties involved are sanctimonious snakes, however we must determine who is less evil. That being said, I will never watch another movie including BL or RR.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This set of circumstances have absolutely nothing to do with the DV in a marriage between Amber Heard and Depp. The power difference between Reynolds/Lively makes them the Depp, not the Heard, and best I know, there was no documentary evidence like screenshots of uncut and unedited text comms backing up either of those parties. So no, sorry, I don’t see any commonalities between these things, nor between Lively’s acts and those of any MeToo claimant in Hollywood or otherwise.

We have to wait and see but I think she ended her career with going to the NYT. Baldoni and his production company likely had the ultimate prize of establishing a working relationship with Sony for additional future projects, which is why he bent over backwards to accommodate the impossible. (That is it seems the “he’s a jerk too” “he is a grifter” stuff - it makes no sense). I find Lively’s actions outrageous and dishonest and the only way to see otherwise is to decide against reason that she is telling the truth as an act of will, because it isn’t backed up with any publicly available information.

I'm the PP you are referring to and I specifically said I think the underlying situations are different and I agree that Lively has much more power than Heard ever had.

My point was that the online pile on against Lively resembles the one against Heard very strongly, and that the way Baldoni's PR team (who also worked for Depp against Heard) and his lawyer have approached the situation really capitalizes on how so many people online are eager to pillory a woman, call her a liar, call her crazy.

I know people will say "But but but THIS time she really is a crazy liar!" Well that would be very convenient because what a nice gift for all the people whose favorite pastime is calling women crazy liars.

That dynamic gives me pause and is enough for me to step back, let the courts handle it, and reserve judgment. I don't get on here defending Lively specifically or claiming she's a great person, but I am not ready to try and convict her in the court of public opinion because there are way too many similarities in the vibe to what happened with Heard. Even if the underlying facts are different. It might be worth it to just cool off the rhetoric.

If Lively's case is crap I'm actually very comfortable that the courts will take care of it, and if Baldoni sincerely has a defamation case, I think he'll get money. Even with the power imbalance, because no matter how rich or famous a woman is, women do NOT get away with things. See, e.g., Martha Stewart. If Lively is at fault here, she'll get pinned for it. If she were a man... not so much.

Thank you for posting this. I was also pro Heard (after a brief shaky period before I dug into the facts) and right now generally think BLs case does not look good, but you’re absolutely right, the pile on of a woman is noteworthy and sad.

Personally I prefer to pile on the NYT- I’m the poster whose a bit obsessed with how they handled their story- and leave the SH case to the courts. I don’t think BLs case has a lot of merit from what I can see, but lots of cases filed aren’t strong and we don’t see this same universal pile on, you’re right.

One of the PP’s asked about whether it’s been shown BL actually lied. So I thought I’d break down some of the SH allegations (trying to take my mind off some other stuff):

Wayfair made her uncomfortable when either he or Jaime:

—Asked her trainer for her weight.
Seems like she was offended (since RR was also upset), but most likely Baldoni was not intending to fat-shame her, given all the times he encouraged her not to worry about her weight. He claims he was trying to prepare for a lift scene. She appears to have been mistaken (or lied?) about there not being a lift in the script.

—Sent her to a weight loss specialist.
She could have been offended when she saw this person’s website, or she could have mischaracterized this one. In any case, he has evidence showing that he was trying to get her probiotics, not weight loss medication.

—Approached her about being nude during birth scene.
Unclear what happened here. They probably did ask her, given they were toting around that video, but she did not end up being fully nude.

—Showed her a video of a woman giving birth
This did happen, and she did respond in a way that shows she was uncomfortable/thought it was porn. Video was put away after she said she would watch it later.

—Allowed people to wander on set during birthing scene in which she was mostly nude.
Baldoni shows set marked as closed, but we don’t know what happened on the day. There is some he said/she said here about who was present. There is also disagreement about what she was actually wearing. Either she was mostly nude with a thin strip of fabric “down there,” or she was wearing a pregnancy belly and hospital gown up top and black briefs on the bottom.

—Engaged in unscripted kissing.
This probably did happen, as JB claims both parties did this. The leaked video of the dance sequence shows he did kiss her neck, but she also mischaracterized at least some of what happened. (E.g., she insisted they talk throughout the unscripted scene but then also said there was no reason for him to talk in the unscripted scene.)

—Used the word “sexy” to describe her outfit.
This did happen, and Baldoni acknowledges BL was offended when he said it, so much so that he immediately apologized. We also know BL used this term around him to describe her outfits. But we do not know that BL ever used that term to describe outfits worn by members of the opposite sex.

Hired his friend to play the OBGYN.
This one seems like it was thrown in to establish a pattern of putting her in uncomfortable situations. The guy was a professional actor, so kinda think this one’s on her to act like a professional in return, but YMMV.

Walked in on her breastfeeding, and at least one time made eye contact with her (after asking the party to turn around).
We don’t really know for sure. We know she invited Baldoni in at least once. We know Heath was in her trailer while she was breastfeeding at least once and that he apologized “if” he inadvertently made eye contact.

What am I missing? I didn’t include anything that seemed to be outside the bounds of SH or anything that happened post production.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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 really wouldn’t be that hard to show…

of course it would be hard to show. It would be extremely hard to show and even if Baldoni puts 10 journalism professors on the record, there would still be a mountain of contradictory evidence. I’m not even sure he beats MTD on actual malice (although I have not combed through the latest.)

It really really won’t be that hard and this is to a jury. They aren’t super precise. And the NYT will likely have written parameters and there will likely be drafts, emails and other materials they are forced to turn over with questions or concerns set out. These are writers and media people- they tend to communicate and that can work against them in these types of cases. See the Fox Old Dominion case where texts sunk them to close to a billion dollar settlement. Fox also claimed that they were protected, they were going to fight it all the way, they were just reporting on a matter of public concern, blah blah.

this case is NOTHING like the Fox Dominion case. there’s zero evidence even alleged that is similar. I don’t know how much background you have in journalism or 1A but you really are off base. That of course doesn’t mean a jury could make a crazy decision but I’m not sure the verdict would stand and I’m not even sure this passes MTD.

Rolling my eyes hard at your repeated reference to ‘1A’. Sorry, no insider uses that expression which is showing me you don’t have nearly the knowledge base in this area of the law you think you do. OF COURSE this case isn’t exactly like the Fox case- in some ways, the Fox case was *better* for Fox- at the beginning at least bc voter fraud and the veracity of the election was clearly a significant matter of public interest for them to report on, including what other people were claiming about a matter of great import. Yet Old Dominion survived a MTD. Can’t really say that about a petty onset scrap between a B list actress and an unknown director. Why the heck was the Times reporting on this crap in the first place? It’s off brand, other than making it into a bigger metoo story.

But my point was that discovery can sink cases for media Defendants bc there tends to be a decent amount of written materials and chatter and internal debate on stories like this, and it typically doesn’t help defendants, especially when used by a crafty Ps attorney, which Bryan Freedman is showing himself to be.

So let’s play this out, and let’s say the jury decides for Ps- a ‘crazy decision’ as you said (which I don’t agree with necessarily but whatever). You think the NYT wants to appeal based on NYT v Sullivan and see what happens there? Have you not noticed the recent strange media settlements? Think about it. It’s a very weird time for the media, and because of some of these factors, including how skilled Bryan Freedman seems to be and how much PR and coverage there is, my belief is that this case has a decent chance.

True the first amendment has nothing to do with defamation lol.

Obviously the legal and media landscape are changing quickly but you keep on acting like there is likely to be ANYTHING similar to what Fox did - and I do not believe it has been alleged and nor will it come out in discovery.

The defamation defense bar does not refer to themselves as ‘1A’ attorneys. Thats my point. It is a fairly small world, which you clearly do not know well, yet you keep chiming in like you’re an expert.

And I never said Fox and the NYT are the same, rather that discovery often gets messy and risky for media defendants because they tend to WRITE everything down.

true, Floyd Abrams never discussed the First Amendment 🤡

anyway I never said I was a defamation defense attorney? I don’t believe you are either. If you are I invite you to write a long post showing how Baldoni will show the same types of facts as alleged in the Dominion cases. “maybe he will dig up a red flag that the jury maybe will construe against the NYT” is not really persuasive.

Sigh. You’re hopeless in digging in when you don’t know, and then trying to twist my words. Floyd Abrams hasn’t been on the defense scene in any real way for years. I get that you took a law class and know his name. Besides, I was making fun of your short hand, 1A. It’s just not an acronym that’s used.

true, only a member of the very small “defense scene” can competently analyze the case; and using an acronym you dislike shows that my opinion is worthless. Mmm hmm.

still waiting for your actual analysis of the dominion v Baldoni complaints. I don’t think Baldoni has even alleged enough to get to discovery.

Defense BAR. Not defense ‘scene’. And yes, your use of strange acronyms and reference to non practicing attorneys leads me to believe you don’t know this area of the law very well. Which is fine. I don’t know the SH side of things that well. The difference is that most people admit what they don’t know. You are amusing in that you act like you are an expert when you’re clearly not.

I think B will get discovery, but sure, let’s wait and see.

Sweetie you were the one who said “defense scene,” not me. And despite your claim to be a member of the elite corps of the defense BAR, you still have done zero to actually detail what in the Baldoni complaint parallels Dominion or even Palin, and what plausibly pleads all the necessary elements especially actual malice.

Meanwhile I have yet to see a single article covering this story that quotes any lawyer saying the claim is strong. Maybe you saw one?

This entire DCUM chain started because of a lawyer on a podcast saying the NYT had risk in this case…

People who know this area of the law well tend to love the NYT, and most aren’t going to run to bet against it. And it’s not like people other than legal nerds care about this issue that much in the first place. But we’ll see what legal analysis comes out as this progresses. I’d love to read it.

I already posted her TikTok here, but I swear I'm not her or her PR person: I recommend https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden

Ooh this has a great discussion of the SH claims. Is there a TikTok from this woman on the NYT piece? (At a doctors office and can’t click on any more videos right now…)

Anonymous wrote:Blake and Ryan are toast. And I think Taylor was much, much more involved than we know.

I agree. I also think Blake and Ryan will need to fade away for quite a while after this reputation blow. Taylor will survive it for now, but eventually her hubris will take her down too. Birds of a feather...

Anonymous wrote:This set of circumstances have absolutely nothing to do with the DV in a marriage between Amber Heard and Depp. The power difference between Reynolds/Lively makes them the Depp, not the Heard, and best I know, there was no documentary evidence like screenshots of uncut and unedited text comms backing up either of those parties. So no, sorry, I don’t see any commonalities between these things, nor between Lively’s acts and those of any MeToo claimant in Hollywood or otherwise.

We have to wait and see but I think she ended her career with going to the NYT. Baldoni and his production company likely had the ultimate prize of establishing a working relationship with Sony for additional future projects, which is why he bent over backwards to accommodate the impossible. (That is it seems the “he’s a jerk too” “he is a grifter” stuff - it makes no sense). I find Lively’s actions outrageous and dishonest and the only way to see otherwise is to decide against reason that she is telling the truth as an act of will, because it isn’t backed up with any publicly available information.

I'm the PP you are referring to and I specifically said I think the underlying situations are different and I agree that Lively has much more power than Heard ever had.

My point was that the online pile on against Lively resembles the one against Heard very strongly, and that the way Baldoni's PR team (who also worked for Depp against Heard) and his lawyer have approached the situation really capitalizes on how so many people online are eager to pillory a woman, call her a liar, call her crazy.

I know people will say "But but but THIS time she really is a crazy liar!" Well that would be very convenient because what a nice gift for all the people whose favorite pastime is calling women crazy liars.

That dynamic gives me pause and is enough for me to step back, let the courts handle it, and reserve judgment. I don't get on here defending Lively specifically or claiming she's a great person, but I am not ready to try and convict her in the court of public opinion because there are way too many similarities in the vibe to what happened with Heard. Even if the underlying facts are different. It might be worth it to just cool off the rhetoric.

If Lively's case is crap I'm actually very comfortable that the courts will take care of it, and if Baldoni sincerely has a defamation case, I think he'll get money. Even with the power imbalance, because no matter how rich or famous a woman is, women do NOT get away with things. See, e.g., Martha Stewart. If Lively is at fault here, she'll get pinned for it. If she were a man... not so much.

Anonymous wrote:The suit against the Times is probably doomed not because it was fair but because of different protections. What do people think about the counter suit against Lively and Reynolds? Baldoni has the resources not to settle.

I think BL and RR will beg to settle

Blake and Ryan are toast. And I think Taylor was much, much more involved than we know.

The suit against the Times is probably doomed not because it was fair but because of different protections. What do people think about the counter suit against Lively and Reynolds? Baldoni has the resources not to settle.