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

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

Yahoo5 days ago

Blake Lively's effort to dismiss Justin Baldoni's defamation countersuit is getting a boost from several advocacy groups, who say the case threatens a hard-won legal protection for people who speak out about sexual harassment and misconduct.
Equal Rights Advocates, a San Francisco–based legal nonprofit that advocates for gender equity and workplace protections, filed an amicus brief on Tuesday urging a federal judge to uphold Lively's motion and defend California's new free speech law protecting those who speak publicly about sexual misconduct. Additional briefs are expected in the coming days from advocacy groups including Child USA and Sanctuary for Families.
The briefs mark the latest salvo in a months-long legal clash between Lively and Baldoni, whose bitter dispute stemming from the production of last year's romantic drama "It Ends With Us" has played out in court and the press.
Lively has accused Baldoni, her co-star and the film's director, of harassing her during filming, citing improvised on-set physical contact, inappropriate conduct and alleged retaliation after she raised concerns — claims he has denied. Advocates say her case highlights the kind of public allegations that the law was meant to protect, and warn that a ruling against her could chill speech around harassment.
'If the law were to be struck down, it wouldn't just affect Blake Lively — it would essentially do away with the protections for all survivors,' said Jessica Schidlow, legal director at Child USA, a nonprofit that advocates for stronger protections for abuse survivors. 'It would be a devastating setback and completely undermine the purpose of the law, which was to make it easier for victims to come forward and to speak their truth without fear of retaliation.'
Read more: Blake Lively moves to dismiss Justin Baldoni's countersuit, citing California law on misconduct claims
Lively invoked the law — California Civil Code Section 47.1, enacted in 2023 as part of Assembly Bill 933 — in a motion filed in March to dismiss Baldoni's $400-million countersuit, which alleges she falsely accused him of harassment and retaliation and tried to wrest control of the film from him.
Baldoni's legal team has strongly opposed the dismissal motion, arguing that Lively's accusations were knowingly false and that the statute she invoked is itself unconstitutional. They argue the law goes too far by threatening steep financial penalties, saying it could discourage people from going to court to defend themselves against false accusations.
'In no event, on this Motion or at any stage of this proceeding, will the First Amendment permit the extreme and unconstitutional award of fees, costs and treble and punitive damages Lively demands,' the filing states.
That position drew a sharp response from Victoria Burke, an attorney who helped push for AB 933 and is now leading efforts to pass similar legislation in 16 other states.
'I was highly disappointed with that move,' said Burke, who is filing her own amicus brief in the case. 'He's put himself out there as a feminist, and this undoes a lot of the good he had been doing. It just seemed cruel and unnecessary — to try to destroy a law that was designed to protect all survivors, just to go after one.'
Lively's attorneys Mike Gottlieb and Esra Hudson also pushed back forcefully on the constitutional challenge, saying in a statement that Baldoni and the other defendants were 'so hell bent on trying to destroy Blake Lively that they are willing to shred a law designed to protect all victims just to make sure they 'bury' one."
Read more: Inside the bare-knuckle legal brawl between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni
AB 933 was designed to shield people who speak out about sexual harassment, assault or discrimination from retaliatory defamation suits, provided their statements weren't made with 'actual malice.' It also includes a fee-shifting provision that requires unsuccessful plaintiffs to pay legal costs and allows for treble and punitive damages.
In a March 4 filing in federal court in New York, Lively's attorneys argued that Baldoni's countersuit is precisely the kind of retaliation that California's new law was meant to prevent.
'The law prohibits weaponizing defamation lawsuits, like this one, to retaliate against individuals who have filed legal claims or have publicly spoken out about sexual harassment and retaliation,' the brief states.
The case marks the first major test of AB 933 since it was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October 2023. The outcome could set an early precedent for how far courts are willing to go in upholding the law — and what protections it ultimately provides for those who speak out about alleged misconduct.
'As more survivors came forward, the people who harmed them were increasingly using defamation lawsuits as weapons to try to silence them,' said Jessica Stender, deputy legal director at Equal Rights Advocates, one of the organizations that co-sponsored AB 933. 'When you see high-profile cases, like the Amber Heard–Johnny Depp case or in this case Blake Lively — survivors without money or fame are scared when they see what can happen to even a rich and famous person, and think, 'That could happen to me, and I can't take that chance.'"
Read more: Justin Baldoni's tumultuous road to the center of a Hollywood scandal
Lively's team, in a May 13 reply brief, defended the law's constitutionality and reiterated that her public statements were protected under AB 933.
'The First Amendment empowers legislatures to protect victims' First Amendment rights via fee-shifting rules designed to deter retaliatory litigation,' her attorneys wrote.
The court has not yet ruled on Lively's motion to dismiss. If granted, it could deal a significant blow to Baldoni's countersuit — and shape how AB 933 is interpreted in future cases involving public allegations of misconduct.
As other states look to adopt similar legislation, advocates say the outcome of the case could have ripple effects far beyond California.
'We want to be able to ensure that there is a social and legal environment where you can speak your truth and report sexual assault and harassment without fear of being sued,' said Dorchen Leidholdt, senior director of legal services at Sanctuary for Families, a New York–based nonprofit that provides legal and support services to survivors of gender-based violence. 'Legal retaliatory actions like the one brought by Mr. Baldoni and his team are doing enormous damage to victims, not just in California but across the country — affecting not only celebrity victims, but ordinary people.'
Sign up for Indie Focus, a weekly newsletter about movies and what's going on in the wild world of cinema.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Challenge to Florida stripper age law dropped
Challenge to Florida stripper age law dropped

Yahoo

time14 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Challenge to Florida stripper age law dropped

After a federal appeals court last month upheld similar restrictions in Jacksonville, plaintiffs have dropped a challenge to a Florida law that prevents strippers under age 21 from performing in adult-entertainment establishments. Attorneys for two clubs, a dancer and an adult retail store filed a notice Tuesday in federal court in Tallahassee dismissing the lawsuit, which challenged the law on First Amendment grounds. U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor issued an order Wednesday closing the case. The notice of dismissal did not explain the reasons, but attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a court document May 7 that pointed to a decision last month by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That decision upheld the constitutionality of a Jacksonville ordinance that bars dancers under age 21 in strip clubs. The May 7 document said the Jacksonville ordinance 'was very similar to the (state) statute challenged in this proceeding. In particular both laws prohibit the employment of persons under the age of 21 in exotic dance establishments.' It also said the plaintiffs in the Jacksonville case did not plan to seek a rehearing or to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. 'Accordingly, the decision issued by the Eleventh Circuit on April 23, 2025 is likely to be a final decision and precedential within this circuit,' the May 7 document said. Lawmakers and Gov. Ron DeSantis last year overwhelmingly approved the age restriction, with supporters saying it was aimed at combatting human trafficking. The lawsuit was filed in July by operators of Cafe Risque, an establishment in Alachua County; operators of Sinsations, an establishment in Jacksonville; Serenity Michelle Bushey, a dancer who performed at Cafe Risque but was barred by the law from working there because she was under 21; and Exotic Fantasies, Inc., which operates a retail store in Jacksonville. The lawsuit said the Legislature did not 'consider any alternative forms of regulation which would burden First Amendment rights less severely; that is, the Legislature made no effort to solicit information in support of a more narrowly tailored law.' Also, it said the state had not shown a connection between human trafficking and adult-entertainment establishments. Winsor in December put the case on hold while the Atlanta-based appeals court considered the Jacksonville ordinance. In the May 7 filing, attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote that operators of Cafe Risque and Sinsations and Bushey 'are similarly situated to the litigants in (the Jacksonville case); to-wit: they are either performers or establishments utilizing performers to provide exotic dance entertainment.' But the document appeared to leave open the possibility that Exotic Fantasies, the retail store, could continue to challenge the law. 'Exotic Fantasies has alleged that the Legislature considered adverse secondary effects in connection with exotic dance clubs but did not consider any evidence linking adult retail stores to human trafficking or other adverse secondary effects,' the May 7 document said. 'Exotic Fantasies has also alleged that, as a matter of empirical fact, there is no basis to conclude that adult retail stores with no on-premises entertainment are linked in any way with human trafficking.' But the notice of dismissal Tuesday included all of the plaintiffs. It was filed 'without prejudice,' a legal term that leaves open the possibility that a challenge could be re-filed. Click here to download our free news, weather and smart TV apps. And click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.

Will the Class of 2025 Ever Get Over College?
Will the Class of 2025 Ever Get Over College?

Bloomberg

time19 hours ago

  • Bloomberg

Will the Class of 2025 Ever Get Over College?

This is Bloomberg Opinion Today, a US asset that generates tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars of economic value for Bloomberg Opinion's opinions. On Sundays, we look at the major themes of the week past and how they will define the week ahead. Sign up for the daily newsletter here. 'Looking back over a decade,' wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald, an indifferent student if there ever was one, 'one sees the ideal of a university become a myth, a vision, a meadow lark among the smoke stacks.' I'm wondering what image the class of 2025 will see in 2035 as they look back on their remarkably tumultuous undergraduate years. Will it be standing in defiance of administrators and politicians and police forces in a peaceful exercise of their First Amendment rights? Or standing in support of terrorists who murdered hundreds of people their age at a trance concert?

America will no longer tolerate Ireland's war on free speech
America will no longer tolerate Ireland's war on free speech

Yahoo

timea day ago

  • Yahoo

America will no longer tolerate Ireland's war on free speech

This week, Marco Rubio delivered a pointed warning to the world: the First Amendment is going global. The US secretary of state announced visa restrictions targeting 'foreign officials and persons' complicit in censoring Americans. 'Whether in Latin America, Europe, or elsewhere,' he said, 'the days of passive treatment for those who work to undermine the rights of Americans are over.' Diplomatically, it falls just shy of sanctions. No names were named: everyone implicated in speech policing, from ministers to overzealous constables, must now wonder whether their family holiday to Disney World has just been indefinitely postponed. Nowhere is the unease more acute than in Dublin. Ireland has long enjoyed its status as the EU's Anglophone entrepôt, a low-tax haven with excellent manners. But with most major social media platforms headquartered there, Dublin's regulators have inherited the unenviable task of enforcing Brussels' online speech codes. Caught between Brussels and Washington, and economically tethered to both, Ireland finds itself in a tight spot. It can no longer please everyone. And the timing could hardly be worse. In February, Brussels enacted the Digital Services Act (DSA), the most ambitious speech regulations in its history. It requires platforms to remove 'illegal content,' including those now-ubiquitous modern offences: 'disinformation' and 'hate speech'. Both are defined, helpfully, by national authorities with varying sensibilities. Brussels has made clear it prefers those definitions to be broad, and enforcement to be swift. The European Commission has now given Dublin two months to resuscitate a shelved hate speech bill or face the European Court of Justice. The law, paused after public backlash, rests on the elastic premise that hate is whatever the state says it is. That may comfort the authorities, but it leaves tech platforms navigating a legal hall of mirrors. The result? American companies face a binary choice: enforce vague foreign speech codes, or risk fines of up to 6 per cent of global turnover per breach. Most will opt for the safer route: when in doubt, delete. The knock-on effects have not gone unnoticed across the Atlantic, and Washington is not amused. As it steps back from its old role as global policeman, it finds its companies quietly conscripted as global censors. The regime, for good measure, threatens to tax not just American profits, but the principles underpinning them. And thanks to a quirk of geography and corporate clustering, Ireland has become the bailiff. That role has already earned Dublin what diplomats might politely call a 'frank exchange of views'. This week, Trump dispatched a team to the Irish capital, where they met with free speech advocates and, I'm told, delivered a few sharp words to the Irish government and media commissioner. Rubio's initiative reflects a growing mood in Washington that American free speech norms are under threat abroad, and that the full force of US diplomacy may be needed to defend them. Europe, for its part, is still pretending there's no clash at all. In Brussels, social media is seen less as a marketplace of ideas than as a digital latrine – the source of Trump, Brexit, and other electoral embarrassments. The sluices, in their view, must be shut. Washington sees it rather differently. In one illustrative moment last year, Thierry Breton, then the EU's Internal Market Commissioner, publicly warned Elon Musk about 'amplifying harmful content' shortly before Musk interviewed Donald Trump. The optics were not ideal: a European official rebuking an American billionaire for speaking to a former American president, in the lead-up to an American election. No such warnings, needless to say, were issued to Democrats. To Trump's allies, the asymmetry is obvious, and the State Department appears to agree. Though 'billed to protect children from harmful online content,' Europe's laws are, in its words, 'used to silence dissident voices through Orwellian content moderation.' Orwellian is a word best used sparingly, but the DSA may be one of the rare exceptions. There is still no settled definition of disinformation or hate speech. European governments, many of them nervous about rising populism, are now positioned to define and punish speech just as their electorates become more volatile. That conflict of interest alone ought to raise eyebrows. Hints of what's to come are already visible. One of the DSA's guiding lights is the Global Disinformation Index. Its co-founder, Clare Melford, once explained that disinformation isn't always about accuracy: 'Something can be factually accurate but still extremely harmful.' This represents a small but meaningful innovation in liberal jurisprudence: the idea that truth is no defence. In a talk at the LSE, Ms Melford offered a 'more useful' standard: 'It's not saying something is or is not disinformation, but it is saying that content on this site or this particular article is content that is anti-immigrant, content that is anti-women, content that is antisemitic.' Put simply, disinformation is not what is false, but what the right people find distasteful. Whether Rubio's visa threats lead to tangible consequences remains to be seen. But the symbolism is already doing its work. If Europe's speech enforcers must now consider the possibility of being flagged or blacklisted from the US, then the First Amendment's long reach may be starting to make itself felt. If not yet in Brussels, then certainly in Dublin. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store