Movies

Blake Lively backed by advocacy groups in legal fight with Justin Baldoni over #MeToo speech law

BBG News

The effort by Blake Lively to discard Justin Baldoni‘s defamation countersuit is receiving backing from various advocacy organizations, as they believe this lawsuit jeopardizes a long-fought legal shield for individuals who publicly address issues like sexual harassment and misconduct.

On Tuesday, Equal Rights Advocates, a nonprofit organization based in San Francisco that champions gender equality and workplace protections, submitted an amicus brief to support a federal judge in upholding a motion regarding California’s recently enacted free speech law, which protects individuals who publicly discuss sexual misconduct. In a separate submission, Elyse Dorsey, a former federal employee and survivor of sexual harassment, filed a letter expressing her interest in the case. She explained that she was sued for defamation after speaking out about her experiences, stating that this law could have saved her from years of legal battles. Further briefs are anticipated from organizations like Child USA and Sanctuary for Families in the upcoming days.

In simpler terms, the recent documents (briefs) represent another round in a prolonged legal battle that has been ongoing for months between Lively and Baldoni. Their heated disagreement, which originated from the making of the romantic drama “It Ends With Us” last year, has been public both in court and media.

In the course of filming, Lively claims that Baldoni, her fellow actor and director, subjected her to harassment, including unwanted physical contact, inappropriate behavior, and retaliation following her expressed concerns – allegations which he denies. Supporters argue that her situation underscores instances where the law was intended to safeguard victims, and caution that a verdict against her could discourage discussions about harassment.

Jessica Schidlow, legal director at Child USA, stated that if the law were to be abolished, it wouldn’t only impact Blake Lively – instead, it would essentially eliminate safeguards for all survivors. She warned that this change would represent a significant step back and completely weaken the intention of the law, which was to empower victims to share their experiences without fear, ensuring they could speak freely about their ordeals.

Movies

As a passionate cinephile, I’ve found myself in the middle of an interesting legal tussle. You see, Blake Lively has moved to dismiss Justin Baldoni’s defamation countersuit, basing her argument on California law. This law specifically shields individuals who expose sexual misconduct claims from facing retaliatory lawsuits – a provision that she believes applies in this case.

Lively used California Civil Code Section 47.1 (passed as part of Assembly Bill 933 in 2023) in a document submitted in March with the intention of dismissing Baldoni’s $400-million lawsuit. This lawsuit claims that she made false accusations against him regarding harassment and retaliation, and attempted to seize control over the film from him.

As a devoted cinephile, I can’t help but express my thoughts on the recent legal proceedings regarding a movie-related issue. Eric Baldoni’s legal team has vigorously contested the motion to dismiss, asserting that the claims made by Ms. Lively were intentionally misleading. They further argue that the law she cited is unconstitutional itself.

Their argument hinges on the premise that this law oversteps its bounds by imposing hefty financial penalties, which they believe could dissuade individuals from seeking justice in court when faced with false accusations. In essence, they’re saying this law might discourage people from defending themselves, potentially tainting the integrity of our legal system.

As a film critic, I would rephrase that statement as follows: “Under no circumstances during this case, either at the outset or throughout its progression, will the First Amendment grant the excessive and unlawful request for fees, costs, triple damages, and punitive penalties that Lively is demanding.” This makes it more conversational and easier to understand.

The stance taken was met with a pointed reaction by Victoria Burke, an attorney instrumental in the approval of AB 933, who is currently spearheading efforts to pass comparable laws in 16 additional states.

In my humble opinion, I found myself deeply disheartened by that particular film. As a critic, I’ve always seen myself as an advocate for equality, and this production seems to have set back the progress it initially appeared to be making. It felt harsh and unwarranted – a deliberate attempt to dismantle a law that was established to safeguard all survivors of similar ordeals, solely focused on one case. This filmmaker, who had previously positioned himself as an advocate for feminism, seems to have undone much of the good work he had started.

In response to questions regarding the legal matters, a representative for Lively commented via statement that Baldoni was attempting to invalidate the nation’s only “MeToo” law as being unconstitutional. The spokesperson further accused Baldoni and his fellow defendants of prioritizing harming Ms. Lively over upholding a law created to safeguard all victims, going so far as to disregard its integrity in their effort to ensure they can silence her. The statement concluded that Lively would persist in using her voice to advocate for justice not just for herself but for others as well.

Hollywood Inc.

For Subscribers

Inside the bare-knuckle legal brawl between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni

A legal drama starring Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni explores opposing viewpoints regarding the aggressive strategies employed by influential entertainment lawyers in defense of their famous clients.

As a passionate moviegoer who stands firm against injustice, I’d put it like this: The AB 933 law is my ally, protecting me and others who bravely speak up against sexual misconduct, harassment, or discrimination. It ensures that such statements aren’t used maliciously against us in defamation suits, as long as our intentions were not malicious. Additionally, this legislation comes with a fee-shifting provision, which means if I fail to prove my case, the one bringing the lawsuit will have to cover my legal costs. Furthermore, it allows for tripling (treble damages) and punitive penalties in cases where justice is needed most.

In their court filing on March 4, Lively’s legal team asserted that Baldoni’s counterclaim is exactly the sort of retribution that California’s recent legislation aims to prohibit.

According to the document, it is forbidden to use defamation lawsuits as a means of revenge against people who have made legal accusations or spoken openly about sexual harassment and retaliation. This particular lawsuit falls under that category.

This legal case represents the initial significant examination of AB 933, enacted by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October 2023. The decision reached could establish an early pattern indicating the courts’ readiness to enforce the law and define the safeguards it offers for individuals reporting misconduct.

With more victims stepping up, those who caused harm were increasingly employing defamation lawsuits as means to stifle them, noted Jessica Stender, deputy legal director at Equal Rights Advocates, one of the organizations backing AB 933. In situations like the Amber Heard-Johnny Depp ordeal, or in this instance Blake Lively’s case, survivors without wealth or influence are left apprehensive, thinking they too could face such repercussions and therefore choose not to speak out.

Movies

For Subscribers

Justin Baldoni’s tumultuous road to the center of a Hollywood scandal

As a devotee of my craft, I’ve woven together my Baha’i principles and storytelling abilities to build a fulfilling career. However, recent claims surrounding Blake Lively and ‘It Ends With Us’ have potentially tarnished my reputation.

In their response on May 13th, Lively’s team argued for the law’s legality and emphasized that her statements fell under the protection provided by AB 933.

According to their argument, the First Amendment allows lawmakers to safeguard victims’ freedom of speech through legal rules that require the loser in a lawsuit to pay the winner’s costs, aiming to discourage lawsuits filed out of retaliation.

The court hasn’t decided on Lively’s request to throw out the case yet. If approved, this decision might severely impact Baldoni’s counterclaim – and influence how future lawsuits based on public accusations of misconduct interpret AB 933.

In other states considering similar laws, it’s suggested that the decision made in this case might create impacts that extend well beyond California’s borders.

Dorchen Leidholdt, senior director of legal services at Sanctuary for Families, a New York-based organization assisting survivors of gender-violence, stated that it’s crucial to establish a setting where individuals can openly express their experiences with sexual assault and harassment without the apprehension of being sued. She pointed out that lawsuits like the one filed by Mr. Baldoni and his team have significant negative impacts on victims, not only in California but nationwide – impacting not just famous victims, but everyday people as well.

Read More

2025-05-27 23:01

Previous post Cardi B’s Near Nip Slip: Stefon Diggs to the Rescue!
Next post Netflix Drops Exciting New Teaser for ‘One Piece’ Season 2 – Fans Are Going Wild!