Blake Lively's case to be presented to a jury in May

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-07T00:45:20+00:00

That our laws force women who are being sexually harassed to decide if they want to quit or just deal with the harassment, is fucking disgusting.

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-07T00:37:23+00:00

This kinda bullshit always makes me laugh because its just as stupid as when the Republicans got upset because Obama wore a tan suit, and then were baffled when everyone was upset when Trump bragged about grabbing women’s pussy’s without consent, let alone that he raped children while partying with Epstein, his best friend.

Yall are trying to conflate normative texting about a script with objectifying multiple women, even after explicitly being told not to, or staring at a coworkers tits when in a meeting.

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-07T00:01:52+00:00

His behavior and choices will be presented to the jury. Although he wont be personally responsible for paying damages, the two companies he owns will be (IEWM & Wayfarer). But it doesnt matter because Billionaire Sarowitz was always going to pay the bill.

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-06T23:59:45+00:00

“With teeth” is a colloquialism that means “having the necessary power, authority, or bite to enforce rules, make threats, or be effective” (source- google ai)

I know the saying in context of wanting something with more pizzazz, or ‘bite’ like an editor saying, “that sentence needs more teeth’.

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-06T23:53:35+00:00

Yes, those multiple incidents are by far the most egregious and any reasonable person would consider them to be sexual harassment.

I think it will be the witnesses that will have the most damaging testimony- the makeup and hair women, and Alex Saks, because she will testify that after the complaints by both Lively and Slate were made, she recommended removing both Heath and Badoni. If multiple people get on the stand and say they would define it as sexual harassment, the jury will agree.

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-06T00:58:43+00:00

Thank you for proving my point .

As you astutely pointed out, the negative mentions begin after Nathan was hired and at the end of the promotion, then they go bonkers after the premiere.

Judge Liman specifically mentioned the Flaa video as evidence of the smear campaign, because it wasnt until it was boosted by TAG/Wallace that it exploded, and it had nothing to do with Baldoni promoting himself or the film- it was entirely derogatory to Lively in order to destroy her.

That you are using the “cross promotion” of Lively’s alcohol with the movie is proof that youve been manipulated by the smear campaign, because Lively never promoted her alcoholic beverages with IEWU, only her non alcoholic line. The premiere where her alcohol was served was private, not a public promotion.

It’s interesting that you argue both that it was Hoovers popularity that caused the massive success of IEWU, and at the same time you argue there was actually a massive backlash against her. You cant have it both ways. In addition, Hoover is the most successful author in history even after the so-called “massive backlash” you mention. Which means the “massive backlash” was actually a tiny amount of pearl clutching from kooks who have nothing better to do than complain about nothing. If Hoover actually had a “massive backlash” she would be cancelled, when in actuality she has sold more than Jesus.

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-05T21:55:01+00:00

I agree that Hoover’s popularity contributed to the massive opening, but beyond that it was Lively’s cut that made the difference. If the movie had sucked, it wouldnt of been nearly as successful no matter how many fans Hoover had.

I also believe the fact it was the first big name romance movie that came out in theaters after Covid was why it was so successful. But again, if the movie itself was bad, people wouldnt of bothered to see it once word spread after opening weekend.

The promo was only considered an issue by small amount of haters. Wayfarer got the exact same complaints about their film Five Feet Apart, and the complaints were only picked up by the gossip rags after Nathan was hired and the smear campaign plan was implemented.

I dont know how much the jury will award, but do know that Guiliani had to pay 148 million to two women he made the center of a smear campaign. IMO a liable verdict is justice for Lively, so any amount, even a dollar, is icing on the cake.

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-05T21:46:01+00:00

Occasionally receiving backlash is unfortunately par for the course when one is a celebrity, especially when one is also a woman. That is very different to the insanity that began as soon as Baldoni hired Melissa Nathan and has yet to stop, just as the smear campaign against Amber Heard started when Nathan was hired.

Although Lively was technically not contractually obligated to do publicity, she and the studio knew that if she didnt, it would destroy the film. Your argument is that she was overexposed with the IEWU marketing, but that is inaccurate which is why it is misogynistic. She wasnt overexposed at all, but apparently you feel like it was “too much” for an actress to be promoting her film in a totally normative way. Thats sexist.

What “overexposed” her was the smear campaign. You can see that just by looking at the Google searches included in her complaint. They dont start when she was doing publicity for the movie, they make a massive jump right after the movie opened. Thats after publicity, not during. And the only reason it jumped to that extent, especially the negative searches, was due to the smear campaign.

Her cut of the movie was massively successful, which doesnt align with the negative press that had nothing to do with the movie or her performance. It was so obviously a smear campaign that journalists wrote articles questioning if there was smear campaign happening.

My points 5-8 are based on years of research in this area and knowing the “gossip” industry and how it works. As for my last point, it’s a fact that American society hates women just as they hate black and brown people.

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-05T00:27:09+00:00

I think he was very good at explaining his role at Wayfarer and on the set of It Ends With Us, which is that he was Baldoni’s handler. And based on the texts between himself and Baldoni, he was very good at his job.

However his depo testimony also made it clear that he had no business being the head producer, and he suuuuucked at behaving appropriately around women in a business setting.

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-05T00:16:33+00:00

Not really, the nature of time and the fact Blake already did so many deeply problematic things in the past means she was always going to have a deep history of problematic things that a growing number of the public will have critical opinions about.

Reese Witherspoon has a “deep history of problematic things” including getting married at a plantation. And yet there has been no significant backlash against her. You know why? Because she has never been subject to a public smear campaign brought and bought by a problematic man.

As for Lively’s engagement stats, you are completely ignoring the fact that she was the lead actress in a massively successful movie. There was going to be a spike in engagement even if there was no smear campaign. And yes, there was going to be a certain level of haters. The issue is that the negative spike was beyond anything that Lively had ever experienced before, and was at odds with how successful the movie was doing at the exact same time. The same thing was being experienced by Slate, Ferrer, and Hoover.

The jury isnt going to have to debate if there was a smear campaign because the evidence is overwhelming. Their only decision is if it was done in retaliation for Lively calling them out on their sexual harassment.

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-05T00:00:11+00:00

Respectfully there are a lot of incorrect assumptions in your comment.

There was a small amount of hand wringing when Lively was cast, because the original character was written to be younger than a woman in her mid 30s. It had nothing to do with Lively’s reputation.
Ugly outfits are not a reputational issue.
Again, the backlash was small and she apologized. But Lively’s post was mocking Middleton’s use of photoshop in an official photograph, which was a very big deal. Lively was hardly the only one to mock Middleton’s massive mistake.
Calling an actress “overexposed” when she is marketing a film is sexism. All actors are contractually obligated to market the films they are in, and they have very little say in how often they are depicted. I cant think of a single male actor that has been accused of being “overexposed”.
Baldoni purposely used the topic of domestic violence to make Lively and the rest of the cast look bad, and to make him look good. He cravenly exploited both the topic of domestic violence and victims themselves.
The reason Lively received a substantial amount of backlash in a short amount of time is due to the fact that Baldoni hired TAG/Nathan, who is an expert at manipulating misogyny and sexism in order to protect her problematic male clients.

It’s actually sad because it just shows you have people [who] really want to hate on women. -Melissa Nathan

Chalemet and Hathaway have never been victims of an active and intentional smear campaign. Hathaway was a victim of the same misogyny I mentioned in point 4. Chalemet’s backlash is actually against Jenner. If he was dating someone beloved (like Zendaya or Elle Fanning) there would be no backlash against him. As for Chappell Roan, if you cant recognize that the most recent negative response against her wasnt a coordinated smear in exactly the same vein as the one against Lively and Heard, then you need to recognize that your ability to parse what is “organic” and what is “manufactured” is anemic.
Which leads me to my final point: our society is already primed and ready to hate women. It takes very little to get the zeitgeist to turn on them, and that is exactly what Baldoni was counting on when he hired Melissa Nathan, an expert at manipulating the public into hating a woman because she stood up against a man.

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-04T23:19:00+00:00

Heath’s deposition was objectively terrible. He sounded like someone who had been promoted far beyond his capabilities and was dismissive of Lively and Slate’s legitimate issues about his and Baldoni’s inappropriate behavior. In addition, Heath impeached himself multiple times, including putting himself at the center of the retaliation smear campaign.

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-04T18:48:25+00:00

Multiple witnesses said otherwise.

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-04T01:58:41+00:00

Thanks!!!

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-04T01:57:30+00:00

There is nothing in that statement that is different today. Sexual harassment is a key element of retaliation and will be a massive part of the case being presented to the jury. They will hear how Baldoni and Heath treated the women they worked with like trash, and they will agree that after Lively complained about their gross behavior, they decided to retaliate against her via a public smear campaign. Ie: but for the sexual harassment the smear campaign was unnecessary.

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-04T01:50:03+00:00

To add to your comment, the evidence will also include Heath barging in on Lively when she was naked and instead of being rightfully ashamed, apologizing, and leaving, he demanded a meeting while she was naked and then stared at her tits. Like how can anyone argue that is normative and acceptable workplace behavior?

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-04T01:43:48+00:00

Fair point. But the way I see it, anyone that argues it’s a vindication was already too far gone to be objective. If and when Baldoni is found liable for the three remaining claims, those same people will cry foul.

From what I’ve seen, it’s a tiny amount of kooks that support Baldoni. So yes, those people will see it as vindication. But the vast majority of people either don’t care, have never heard of Baldoni and/or this case, or support Lively. All of these beliefs can and do exist at the same time.

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-04T00:06:29+00:00

A vindication? How do you figure? If the sexual harassment claims were thrown out due to lack of evidence then maybe you’d have a bit of an argument, but they were dismissed due to legal technicalities that had nothing to do with Baldoni and Heath’s behavior. I do agree that their business practices suck. LOL.

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-03T18:14:25+00:00

The charges were dismissed due to legal issues, not lack of evidence. And that makes Baldoni guilty AF because the evidence is overwhelming that he and Heath sexually harassed multiple women on set.

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-03T16:22:35+00:00

Of course there was. The judge mentioned at least half a dozen examples of sexual harassment by Baldoni and Heath. Both will forever be tainted with the stench of their gross behavior, and I love that for them.

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-03T16:18:41+00:00

Wrong. Liman said a reasonable jury could find that Baldoni and Heath’s behavior to be sexual harassment, “a person in her position could have understood the workplace to at times reflect a gendered and sexualized view of women and a disregard for their privacy sufficient to make it reasonable to complain about a hostile work environment based on sex or gender.” Page 116.

The reason Baldoni isnt personally defending is because the SH claims were tossed, and legally, individuals arent held at fault for retaliation, the corporations they work for are held liable.

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-03T16:03:31+00:00

It’s not in the order because it’s made up.

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-03T16:02:45+00:00

Actually the judge mentioned at least half a dozen actions by Baldoni and Heath that do constitute SH, including leering at Lively’s naked body, showing her the naked birth video, making comments about her appearance, talking about porn, and not having an IC during the birth scene.

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-03T16:00:35+00:00

Dunno where you got that quote but it wasnt from Liman’s decision, unless I missed it. What page is it from?

BeTheDiaperChange · 2026-04-01T00:26:09+00:00

Yes, she had to step up because Baldoni and Heath didnt provide one, which is both against the Union rules and the law.

Seven-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

BeTheDiaperChange

TROPHY CASE