The New York Times published an in-depth piece about Lively’s legal action soon after it was filed.
In January, Baldoni responded by suing both the New York Times and Lively herself, contending that Lively’s accusations and the Times’ reporting on them amounted to defamation.
Here is where I must say I deeply wish that everyone who has trumpeted Baldoni’s cause would unlearn the phrase the court of public opinion.
This “court of public opinion” people love talking about can still evolve, no matter how much Baldoni supporters want to claim they’ve already won there.
And with the dismissal of Baldoni’s lawsuits, the odds of that happening aren’t certain, but they’re looking better than ever.
To receive the best analysis, critiques, and guidance available, subscribe to the Slatest and have it sent to your inbox every day.
A federal judge dismissed actor and director Justin Baldoni’s $400 million defamation lawsuit against Blake Lively on Monday, which should be seen as a major victory for the actress. The lawsuit was related to disputes over the production of their 2024 movie It Ends With Us. Due to the distorted dynamics that have come to define the ongoing public battle between the stars, Lively’s victory—which might have seemed simple—is actually much more complicated.
After Lively spoke out, Baldoni launched a smear campaign to harm her reputation through crisis publicists. Lively filed a complaint against Baldoni with the California Civil Rights Department in December, claiming that Baldoni had sexually harassed her on the set of their movie. Shortly after it was filed, the New York Times published a detailed article about Lively’s lawsuit. Baldoni retaliated in January by suing Lively and the New York Times, claiming that Lively’s charges and the Times’ coverage of them were defamatory. Although all of the lawsuits were combined into a single case, Judge Lewis Liman has now decided that only Lively’s lawsuit will go to trial as scheduled next year.
Lively sued Baldoni for something she thought was true, but Liman basically said that it wasn’t defamatory. Additionally, Baldoni’s team was unable to prove that Lively made any defamatory remarks outside of her complaint. Furthermore, a news organization’s coverage of these court filings was not defamatory. According to Liman’s ruling, Baldoni failed to demonstrate that the Times had acted with “actual malice,” which is to say that it purposefully published something it had cause to question. Liman stated that Baldoni could resubmit some of his claims pertaining to contractual obligations, even though the extortion and defamation claims are no longer available. ).
If you have been following the case over the past few months, you won’t be surprised when the judge rejects the majority of Baldoni’s claims because there have been multiple indications that Liman might not be amenable to the absurdity of Baldoni’s legal team. I’m mostly thinking about the whole sham involving the Taylor Swift extortion claim; Lively’s motion to have the entire case struck from the record was granted by Liman after Baldoni attorney Bryan Freedman wrote last month that he had proof that Lively’s attorneys were attempting to coerce her former friend Swift into backing her. Although Lively has not yet won this case, she appears to be doing well legally at least, with a court that appears unwilling to join in on the MeToo backlash that has been stoking public animosity toward her.
However, a judge who is impartial won’t completely shield Lively from hateful pro-Baldoni sentiment because the jury will ultimately consist of members of the public, and many of them appear to have already made up their minds. Here is where I have to say that I sincerely hope that everyone who has advocated for Baldoni will unlearn the term “court of public opinion.”. They enjoy using it against Lively and bragging about how much goodwill the celebrity has already eroded due to her alleged deceit and diva behavior. This is a stunning legal victory for Blake Lively, but if Baldoni has more support in the court of public opinion, which I believe he absolutely does, I don’t see this doing anything to change that, said Billy Bush, the disgraced former Access Hollywood host who reportedly now hosts a podcast on which he has taken up the anti-Blake Lively cause. Bush made this statement on the microphone on Monday. “Isn’t it worse if people think she tried to set this guy up on the set and then she just did it legally?”.
This kind of thing isn’t just being said by Bush and other right-leaning podcasters; during the last 24 hours, the phrase has been widely used in Reddit comments, TikTok, and YouTube videos. (Other typical coping mechanisms include claiming that Lively’s husband, Ryan Reynolds, must have bought off the judge and that he is corrupt because his brother is a Hollywood director. Indeed, Lively’s reputation has taken a hit. Many people are loud and seem content to talk about little else, which leads one to think that Lively may have already lost something irreparable. I also see this in those who roll their eyes and say that both Baldoni and Lively seem tired, or who proudly declare that they don’t care about this case. Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean her claims are unfounded.
The degree of public engagement may be viewed in a different way. Most people have likely found the case too complicated to follow every development, and Lively is well-known enough that, should she prevail, perhaps people will be sufficiently satisfied to put the matter out of their minds and simply watch her husband play Deadpool. Unfortunately, that may ultimately be the deciding factor. It doesn’t matter how much Baldoni supporters want to say they’ve already won this “court of public opinion” debate. Although a real court win wouldn’t alter everyone’s opinion, it would have significance. The likelihood of that occurring is uncertain, but it appears more likely than ever because of the dismissal of Baldoni’s lawsuits.
