Justin Baldoni’s Legal Team Decides To Wage A PR War Before Trial
from the gross dept
And now this whole thing gets even messier. What started off as something of a Streisand Effect post about Justin Baldoni’s decision to amplify the accusations made against him by Blake Lively has now simply ballooned into something much, much larger. Keep in mind that Lively’s accusations can essentially be distilled down to two main claims: Baldoni engaged in inappropriate workplace behavior of a sexual nature while on the set of the film It Ends With Us, and that Baldoni and his team engaged in a secretive PR battle to generate negative press against Lively in retaliation. As a result of the claims, Lively sued Baldoni and his production company, Baldoni sued both the NY Times for reporting on the claims and Lively and husband Ryan Reynolds for extortion and defamation, and then Baldoni sent a legal hold notice to Marvel and Disney to preserve evidence surrounding a bit character in the latest Deadpool movie that might be a parody of Baldoni.
If this is starting to sound like a flavor of the whole Depp/Heard fiasco from a couple of years ago, you’re not alone. And it seems that some of the same tactics are being employed, at least by Baldoni’s legal team. Were Baldoni to want to address this in as professional a manner possible, it would be simple to do. You don’t comment on the case publicly. Your legal team prepares a vigorous defense reserved for court proceedings. And you certainly don’t do anything that either makes you look defensive, or looks like a version of exactly what you’re accused of, or both.
It appears Baldoni and his legal team have chosen an alternate route, attempting to wage a PR war before the actual legal proceedings have even begun. It starts with Baldoni’s lawyers releasing 10 minutes of footage it claims debunks a central claim of Lively’s concerning inappropriate behavior in a scene from the movie.
The video released is nearly 10 minutes of footage during which Lively and Baldoni are seen filming for a slow dance montage that is referenced in both Lively’s initial complaint with the California Civil Rights Department and a later lawsuit, in which she cited specific instances of what she characterized as inappropriate behavior by Baldoni.
Lively claimed in her December 31 sexual harassment lawsuit against Baldoni that he “leaned forward and slowly dragged his lips from her ear and down her neck as he said, ‘it smells so good,’” a comment the complaint described as not “remotely in character, or based on any dialogue in the script.”
“The following videos captured on May 23, 2023 clearly refute Ms. Lively’s characterization of his behavior,” a statement that precedes the footage provided by Baldoni’s lawyer this week said. “The scene in question was designed to show the two characters falling in love and longing to be close to one another. Both actors are clearly behaving well within the scope of the scene and with mutual respect and professionalism.”
Except, based on Lively’s description and the reporting around what the footage actually shows, it doesn’t “clearly refute” Lively’s description at all. The interpretation of what is occurring in the footage may be ambiguous at best, but this is by no means the smoking gun that Baldoni’s legal team claims it is. This appears instead to be an attempt to publicly frame the evidence in a certain light for, perhaps, the purpose of cementing that framing in some of the eventual jury members at trial.
Lively’s legal team, as you can see, views the footage in an entirely different way.
“Justin Baldoni and his lawyer may hope that this latest stunt will get ahead of the damaging evidence against him, but the video itself is damning,” the statement read. “The video shows Ms. Lively leaning away and repeatedly asking for the characters to just talk. Any woman who has been inappropriately touched in the workplace will recognize Ms. Lively’s discomfort. They will recognize her attempts at levity to try to deflect the unwanted touching. No woman should have to take defensive measures to avoid being touched by their employer without their consent.”
Obviously the appropriate venue to determine which side here is right is a trial. Not the court of public opinion. Except that appears to be exactly where Baldoni and his legal team want to air all of this currently. And if that doesn’t sound something like one of Lively’s central accusations to you — the attempt to build negative press against Lively as a result of her accusations — then you need to look again, because that is exactly what is happening here.
And it appears it will continue to happen in a manner fully planned out by Baldoni’s lawyers.
Baldoni’s legal representation said Tuesday that they have plans to set up a website that contains more correspondence and video footage that will discredit Lively’s claims.
This is just plain gross. Again, the proper way to handle this is to have this evidence presented at trial, not on some website. And while Lively and her team have not been shy about making public statements about this whole dispute, it is also true that the instigator making this a public fiasco rather than a legal matter has been Baldoni’s side at nearly every turn.
So, sure, this is still a Streisand Effect story or sorts. But it’s also a lot, lot more. It’s a legal team that appears to want to fight and mud-drag Lively using the internet in a PR campaign before it enters the legal arena. There are lots of potential reasons for wanting to engage in that strategy, but none of them are good looks for Baldoni, particularly as they align with Lively’s accusations against him.
Filed Under: blake lively, defamation, it ends with us, justin baldoni, pr, pr battle


Comments on “Justin Baldoni’s Legal Team Decides To Wage A PR War Before Trial”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Good for him. Win in court-and in the court of public opinion.
Re:
This message has been brought to you by the same people who popularized these classics:
“Actually it’s about ethics in gaming journalism.”
“What was she wearing?”
“A black Little Mermaid does not make sense because…”
Re: Re:
Don’t forget “if it’s legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down”.
Re: Re: Re:
The thing about “legitimate rape” and “female body has ways to shut down” is highly offensive in my book not even due to the pseudoscience but due to the premise that a woman is not to be considered as a human being but as an animal that does not get to make decisions contravening animal instincts.
It’s like justifying force-feeding beef to vegetarians and then claiming that this was exonerated by the victim salivating.
That the victim of a crime also has to deal with the betrayal of their own body adds to humiliation and the shame and the trauma and the guilt.
Re: Re:
To me, a black Little Mermaid makes no less sense than a white one. the reason I refused to watch the live action movie even pre-owned is because they changed the lyrics to ‘Kiss the Girl’ to “include consent” when, if you think about the story behind the original version, Ariel’s consent was already there.
Re: Re: Re: MERMAIDS
So this thread is about racist morons and non-racist morons arguing over a mythical non-existant creature.
Begged question much, douchebags?
Re: Re: Re:2
Read again, racist shitbag:
Did you get that? …makes no less sense… So for you to read racism in the sentence you quoted demonstrates projected racism on your part.
Re:
Fucking weirdo creep.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Go back to Africa, Sambo.
Re: Re: Re:
Fucking racist weirdo creep.
Yay, the side-pickers are back, and true to form, ignore the implicit advice that Team Baldoni would do well to observe. It’s a multilevel own-goal, buti see the strategy: It’s part of the ongoing attempt to normalize the ridiculous, especially in the courts. The reality is that even the denials of his behavior are false. His behaviors are fully condoned; the denial is that this sort of behavior is anything but right. This holds whether or not anyone did anything so far described, the important part is that it is a culture war story for people to internalize.
So the only change is Baldoni’s no longer being “secretive” about his campaign to maliciously defame his victims.
This sounds familiar.
It’s all okay. He just has to drag the case out for 4 more years so he can run for president.
Evidence… what about the other takes of the scene(s) in question?
And, if Baldoni’s legal team is throwing up a website, will they also be mixing in some AI tampering? (I mean, it’s only the Court of Public Opinion–same as for supermarket tabloids.)
Re:
They don’t need to do any AI tampering. They just post all the incriminating evidence they can find and then be completely lackadaisical about it. That takes the wind out of their opponents’ sails because they don’t have anything else to offer.
It’s the “perfect phonecall” ruse. Give the other side so much rope to hang you that it breaks the gallows.
Sleaze
Baldoni is coming across as an exceptionally sleazy, greasy troll. I guess he’s planning a political future in the GOP.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
What’s greasy and trollish about making a maximum effort to defend one’s reputation and undermine the credibility of one’s accuser(s)/tormenter(s)? Just curious.
Re: Re:
^
Strawman
Re: Re:
If you’re suing someone, trying to rig the game in your favor by presenting what would otherwise be evidence in that lawsuit to the general public (including potential judges/jury members who could hear the case) comes off as unethical and underhanded. Add in how this feels like another Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard situation—a situation in which the woman came out with greater reputational damage than the man despite the situation exposing both of them as assholes—and I can understand the reason Baldoni is trying to put Lively in the same situation.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Amber Heard is a libelist who got what she deserved.
Re: Re: Re:2
I rest my case, Your Honor.
Re: Re: Re:
When TechDirt was sued by the “I invented email” guy, Masnick gave a presentation and put it on YouTube for the world to see, while the case was ongoing.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
This is why American women would do well to heed the advice of their South Korean sisters: observe the 4B methodology and avoid all heterosexual and heteronormative interactions. They’d be better off that way. Straight men have had it far too good for far too long, and they are the reason why we got a second Trump term.
The only place for men is in romance novels involving cowboys kissing each other.
Re: Re:
TIL: The Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution was never ratified to give American women the vote in 1920.
Re: Re: Re: TIL???
No, the Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified on August 18, 1920. The amendment was certified by Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby on August 26, 1920.
TN was the 36th state to ratify it.
Maybe try “learning” in a different way, so that facts don’t escape you.
If he’s suing for defamation, it would be weird to not use the “court of public opinion”; his public reputation is the point.
When Techdirt was sued by Shiva Ayyadurai, what did they do?Masnick gave a presentation and put it on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBsxGjjnRpk
In general, litigants should not be expected to just shut up.
If the script shows he went further than what the video shows, he’s toast. Like black-carbon toast. I hope his lawyers checked this before putting that video out…
Re:
The producer should not be casting himself into such situations in the first place, IMO.
Winning the PR battle is the goal
TechDirt seems to be under the impression that the primary purpose of the legal battle is to resolve civil issues in court. In that view, the legal battle is the ends and the PR battle is the means to those ends (“purpose of cementing that framing in some of the eventual jury members at trial”).
What if the primary purpose of the lawsuit is the PR battle and the legal battle is just the means to that end?
If either participant loses the PR battle, their future employment in Hollywood is in great jeopardy.
Re:
There are no winners. Movie career for either of them is over. No casting manager can afford to propose either of them; both of them are red-flagged as just too high of a financial risk for the production.
'I would never do the thing I'm about to do!'
Nothing like trying to undermine the other side’s claims by acting in a manner that just bolsters them.
Actually IIRC Baldoni’s using the same PR team that successfully smeared Heard.
Re:
What, Baldoni hired Amber Heard?
Yeah, Reynolds too
The usual trash outlets today are carrying leaks that Reynolds was mean on the Deadpool set.
Search for “Ryan Reynolds’ treatment of TJ Miller”
Yawn.
Re:
That’s not really a “leak” that came out years ago and TJ Miller said after that him and Ryan are fine now.
Re: Re:
Also, Miller’s a confirmed bully and an alleged rapist, so it’s not like I’m going to trust his word uncritically either.