Justin Baldoni's Blake Lively Lawsuit Dismissed: Opinion

Buzz Feed

3 hours ago

I fucking told you so: Justin Baldoni's $400 Million countersuit against Blake Lively was tossed out by a judge.
Last December, Blake filed a California Civil Rights Department complaint against her It Ends With Us co-star and director, in which she alleged sexual harassment and a subsequent retaliatory media campaign (she would then go on to sue Justin). Justin denied the claims and filed a countersuit of his own, alleging defamation and extortion, among other things.
Earlier today, a judge ruled that the countersuit against Blake, as well as Ryan Reynolds, Leslie Sloane, Vision PR, and the New York Times Company had been dismissed. The Wayfarer parties can still amend their complaint for "breach of implied covenant and tortious interference with contract." But the important part that I'd like to highlight is the emphasis that the allegations Blake made in her CRD complaint were privileged speech.
To highlight one section from the judge: "The Wayfarer Parties have not adequately alleged a defamation claim as to any part of the purported conspiracy. The Wayfarer Parties have not adequately alleged that any false statements were made to the Times other than the statements in Lively's CRD complaint, which were privileged under California law. There also is no allegation that the distribution of the CRD complaint was made by anyone other than Lively or, more particularly, with the involvement or agreement of Sloane or Reynolds. The Wayfarer Parties have not adequately alleged that Sloane or Reynolds individually did any more than repeat Lively's version of events, which they had no reason to doubt. And the Wayfarer Parties have not adequately alleged that Lively should be held responsible for Sloane or Reynolds' statements. Their allegations of a conspiracy between the parties are conclusory."
In non-legal-speak terms, California has a rule that essentially means you can't be sued for defamation if you make a serious allegation of sexual harassment. It's designed to prohibit a tactic that can be used to silence survivors who do speak out by bleeding them dry via the courts.
19 women's organizations already expressed concern over Baldoni's lawsuit because of what it could mean for survivors. Child USA worried that allowing Baldoni's lawsuit to continue would effectively have grave complications for California's civil code and "would force survivors into the untenable position of having to choose between remaining silent or facing emotional, reputational, and financial devastation through protracted, abusive litigation."
The Child USA amicus brief continues, "It would also send a dangerous message to other survivors contemplating disclosure — that speaking out may carry intolerable risks — and it would embolden perpetrators and complicit institutions that depend on secrecy to perpetuate cycles of abuse."
This is what I have been harping on about since news of the lawsuits first emerged. This isn't just an annoying celebrity trial. If Blake Lively, a rich white lady with celebrity cache, can face a multimillion retaliatory defamation lawsuit, where the fuck does that put the rest of us who might want to speak out about sexual harassment? We need allegations of sexual harassment without malice to be considered privileged speech, which isn't the case across the country.
The suit against the New York Times being dropped is also good news for the media's ability to report on alleged sexual harassment cases. Smaller publications sounded the alarm from the get-go.
To a certain extent, I do worry that the damage has already been done. Most people I speak to voice confusion about what to me is a fairly simple sexual harassment and retaliation case, citing the sheer abundance of media flooding our feeds. Will all the tabloids and TikTokers that called Blake a bitch in a million different ways because she made an allegation of sexual harassment finally look at themselves in the mirror? Will my comments finally not be full of people who claim they know more about this case and its implications for women than a domestic violence shelter? (For the love of god, "Believe All Women" is not the slogan).
Or perhaps the slop machine will keep churning until the trial, reminding us that we are in an age of conspiracy that will continue to assert that survivors' stories are really important — well, unless I don't like you. Nothing says, "I champion survivors' stories" more than spending most of your time bashing a woman online!