Justin Baldoni drops Taylor Swift subpoena

[LadyEnigma 1,138]

i don't really care enough to read about it, why would the subpoena be dropped? she wasn't involved, and JB's team was incorrect or do we not know at all

[OliviaRodrigoStan 6,094]

1 minute ago, salty like sodium said:

@OliviaRodrigoStanthat's a good summary but you did forget a few elements, like the part of her citing a conversation in a car where he mentioned having sexual encounters that weren't fully consensual in the past which made her uncomfortable.

I didn't mention that because there's no evidence to refute that. However Baldoni did respond, and if he's telling the truth, it would the worst of Blake's misrepresentations of the truth. Baldoni alleges that he had a conversation involving non-consexual sex with Blake, but he was ~the victim~ in the anecdote he shared with her . So he basically told her: "I had a partner that violated my consent, and only years later I realized that was a problem", and Blake ALLEGEDLY twisted the situation by playing with semantics, in order to omit completely the part where he claimed to be a victim in that situation, and not the aggressor, to paint him as predatory . But again: there's no evidence on either side for this claim, it's her word against his. 

Of course I could give her the benefit of the doubt, but considering the available evidence, it would be naive of me to do so. Throughout the case, she has time and time again danced around certain topics, with deliberately oddly phrased statements, to present situations as far more damning than the actually were. And still seems to be doing so. 

For example: she was celebrated as "Titan of the Year" by Times Magazine, on the grounds of a donation she made years ago, towards an organization that focused on racial equity (donation that she made after getting backlash for getting married in a plantation ). During her speech, she vaguelly alluded to her ongoing legal case, and tried to link it with her mom's past trauma. 

She then proceeded to talk about her mother being "a survivor", of "the worst crime a woman can experience". She was deliberately vague about it, and insisted her mom was able to survive, because of a testimony she remembered, made by another woman who was able to escape a similar scenario. For that reason, Blake claims, it is important for her as a woman to raise her voice when victimized, because her mother is basically alive thanks to an anonymous woman who shared her story before her, and gave her the tools to escape her own trauma. 

Now, all of this is clearly trying to paint a very specific narrative: my mother, a survivor, escaped her aggressor by following the steps of a random survivor she heard on the radio; so I, another survivor, have to share my story too, so that I can help a future victim, by inspiring them with my bravery. I'm actually a hero. That's basically what she was going for. 

HOWEVER... during the "It Ends With Us" promotional tour, a film about domestic violence, she repeated multiple times that she had no reference in her personal life to connect with her character's situation, hence why she disliked discussing her as "a victim". She specifically said that nobody within her circle ever experienced such situation . But now that it's a helpful narrative for her, her mother is suddenly "a survivor"? . 

Well, ALLEGEDLY, what her mother survived as a murder attempt by a female co-worker. Which is a very different scenario from that which she KNEW the audience would imagine. 

She knows that, based on the deliberately vague way in which she presented the story, the audience would automatically assume she was talking about sexual assault or domestic violence. She was talking about neither (allegedly), but she still presented the story ambiguously enough, so that it could be interpreted in a way that would serve her case . 

To me, this continues to imply malice on the way she communicates. She continues to cherry pick her words to paint a false narrative, and I see no reason to give her the benefit of the doubt at this point. 

Everything seems to suggest she's lying, and absolutely nothing seems to suggest she's being honest . 

 

[Dreammonster 172]

If anyone got to read the actual article it says that Baldoni's lawyer got the sufficient stuff he needed from Taylor's camp so there is no reason to go forward with the subpoena so they withdrew it. 

[OliviaRodrigoStan 6,094]

1 hour ago, LadyEnigma said:

i don't really care enough to read about it, why would the subpoena be dropped? she wasn't involved, and JB's team was incorrect or do we not know at all

The current reports claim that Baldoni's lawyer withdrew the subpoena, because Taylor's team voluntarily gave them the evidence he needed. Basically Bryan Freedman doesn't need to subpoena Taylor Swift, because she gave him the texts he needed already. 

ALLEGEDLY of course.

[howsAnnie 380]

Absolutely groundbreaking!!

How other people's business and baseless speculation can be so entertaining to some, I do not understand. No shade though, I have weird hobbies too and that's ok, no harm done. Or is it? Because you do realize that this is exactly how smear campaigns work, right? People being really quick to judge and overanalyzing things that have nothing to do with them personally. And how often does the opportunity arise to feel so morally superior to some rich celebrity you've seen on TV anyway? Must be great for one's ego, I guess.

But maybe let's keep in mind that in ongoing court cases, the information that goes public is always just the tip of the iceberg. I'm sure these people have some really good lawyers, so let them and the judges figure it out, I guess - instead of pointing fingers from afar while knowing next to nothing about what's going on behind the scenes.

I wouldn't be surprised if Blake's / Taylor's / her father's legal team advised her against saying anything at all. Maybe it would actually be detrimental to Blake's cause because this stuff is complicated, or damaging to Taylor's brand as long as the matter isn't resolved, or whatever! I didn't study law, I'm not involved in this, and frankly not interested. I do find it interesting, though, how f**ked up our society is after two decades of social media, with people being so quick to name and shame for their personal entertainment and careers being ended before there's an investigation, let alone a trial. And it's not just celebrities, it can happen to literally anyone these days. But it's all fun and games, of course, as long as it doesn't happen to ME, I guess. lol

So yeah, let's look for cryptic signs in Blake Lively's Instagram posts, because of course she is a grown woman living in a mean girl-fever dream, and there's gotta be a reason why she would publicly post hidden threats and hope that Taylor Swift, who Blake has no other way of contacting, notices and feels intimidated. I even read that Lady Gaga is an Illuminati puppet and the antichrist, it's all online, can you imagine???

[Ivy 12,295]

1 hour ago, salty like sodium said:

@OliviaRodrigoStanthat's a good summary but you did forget a few elements, like the part of her citing a conversation in a car where he mentioned having sexual encounters that weren't fully consensual in the past which made her uncomfortable

Yeah this turned out to allegedly be him sharing about experience from when he was young when he was the victim, and Blake framed it leaving that part out, to make it like he was the perpetrator

Ofc him telling her about it still could have made her uncomfortable, so that part could be true

[OliviaRodrigoStan 6,094]

13 minutes ago, Ivy said:

Ofc him telling her about it still could have made her uncomfortable, so that part could be true

But that's the thing: feeling uncomfortable is not grounds for a lawsuit, nor it justifies accusing someone of sexual harrassment. An adult person will most likely be able to differentiate between an awkward conversation, and sexual harrassment . 

I don't think Blake Lively is stupid, and I do believe she is capable of differentiating between the two. SPECIALLY considering she's married to Ryan Reynolds, who literally sent Baldoni text messages promising to get staff members' faces tattoed on his genitals, if they complied with his demands/suggestions during production . Both Blake and her husband are known for their inappropriate, sexually charged "sense of humour", I don't think she's sensitive towards graphic conversations, nor do I think she can't differentiate between an uncomfortable conversation, and sexual harrassment. 

I think she knows the difference between the two, hence why I personally interpret malice in her actions. Do I know this to be A FACT? no, I wasn't there, and I literally ~know~ nothing about their interactions. 

But based on the publicly available information... . I'm inclined to believe she's lying, so far, yes . 

30 minutes ago, howsAnnie said:

And how often does the opportunity arise to feel so morally superior to some rich celebrity you've seen on TV anyway? Must be great for one's ego, I guess.

I mean, you would know. You are literally here, claiming moral superiority by suggesting we are favoring a smear campaign against an innocent woman, despite clearly knowing little to nothing about the case. So tell us: how often does this opportunity arise for you bestie?  is it frequent, or was this just a lucky day for you? 

34 minutes ago, howsAnnie said:

I didn't study law, I'm not involved in this, and frankly not interested.

But you're still here running your mouth, suggesting we're all horrible people for speaking publicly on a public dispute, how curious . I think there's nothing wrong about you being ill informed on this legal case, it is not something that will ever affect any of us, it isn't relevant for society, etc. It's ok, you're not into celebrity gossip, we love that for you, that's so fetch . 

However, I do not understand the idea of taking pride in one's ignorance about a certain topic, while simultaneously claiming moral superiority on the grounds of such ignorance . "I know nothing about this, because I don't care about other people's business, but I still have an ill-informed opinion about it, and I think I'm a better person because I think my opinion is the right opinion, and you are all evil"... ok gurl .

If that's your fantasy girl, I will not be the one to interrupt it. YES, you are the best person on this thread, and YES, you clocked our tea, we're drowning in shame, everybody clapped, mysogyny was ENDED today .

BACK ON TOPIC: I think Blake Lively is a cvnt and I don't believe a single word she says . Just my opinion though, no shade, maybe she is a truthful queen, IDK 

[Bronco 9,467]

6 minutes ago, OliviaRodrigoStan said:

feeling uncomfortable is not grounds for a lawsuit, nor it justifies accusing someone of sexual harrassment

Actually, sexual conversations no matter the topic or content that make another feel uncomfortable IS sexual harrassment.

So if he shared the story about himself as a victim without invitation or without it being relevant to work etc then it absolutely would go against him from a HR standpoint. 

[howsAnnie 380]

58 minutes ago, OliviaRodrigoStan said:

But you're still here running your mouth, suggesting we're all horrible people for speaking publicly on a public dispute, how curious . I think there's nothing wrong about you being ill informed on this legal case, it is not something that will ever affect any of us, it isn't relevant for society, etc. It's ok, you're not into celebrity gossip, we love that for you, that's so fetch . 

However, I do not understand the idea of taking pride in one's ignorance about a certain topic, while simultaneously claiming moral superiority on the grounds of such ignorance . "I know nothing about this, because I don't care about other people's business, but I still have an ill-informed opinion about it, and I think I'm a better person because I think my opinion is the right opinion, and you are all evil"... ok gurl .

If that's your fantasy girl, I will not be the one to interrupt it. YES, you are the best person on this thread, and YES, you clocked our tea, we're drowning in shame, everybody clapped, mysogyny was ENDED today .

BACK ON TOPIC: I think Blake Lively is a cvnt and I don't believe a single word she says . Just my opinion though, no shade, maybe she is a truthful queen, IDK 

There’s really no point engaging with someone who not only struggles with basic reading comprehension but also thinks they "clocked my tea" with that messy post, to borrow your phrasing. I don’t make a habit of repeating myself, so if my reason for joining the discussion, despite having no interest in the drama surrounding the case itself, somehow escaped you, maybe read a book or two to sharpen your grasp. I clearly must have struck a nerve there seeing as you took so much offense in what I wrote, but that says far more about you than me. And yeah, anybody would probably feel a touch morally superior to you now tbh, given all the material you’ve provided with that response. lol But hey, if hating Blake Lively gives you purpose, by all means, thrive girl. x

[Ivy 12,295]

2 hours ago, OliviaRodrigoStan said:

SPECIALLY considering she's married to Ryan Reynolds, who literally sent Baldoni text messages promising to get staff members' faces tattoed on his genitals, if they complied with his demands/suggestions during production .

Omg he did? I didn't see that part 

[OliviaRodrigoStan 6,094]

4 hours ago, Bronco said:

Actually, sexual conversations no matter the topic or content that make another feel uncomfortable IS sexual harrassment.

So if he shared the story about himself as a victim without invitation or without it being relevant to work etc then it absolutely would go against him from a HR standpoint. 

I disagree, and I don't think a single court on planet earth would entertain such narrative. With that logic, if a friend of yours, or a relative, opens up to you about their experience with sexual violence... they're sexually harrassing you  as long as you feel "uncomfortable" . 

With that mindset, no victim should ever come forward with their story, to anyone, because it would make THEM the aggressor, no gurl, I can't even finish typing it, it's too goofy . I can absolutely see how oversharing can make the other person uncomfortable, I have been in that situation, and I would agree it isn't pleasant to be trauma dumped on, etc. 

But to say: "A victim of sexual violence sharing their story constitutes sexual harrassment, because sex is included in the conversation" is straight up insane . At least it is insane in my country, no judge would ever entertain a sexual harrassment case if ~that~ was the offence 💀. 

I also don't think "a valid HR complain" equals... a sexual harrassment legal case. I can see Blake having a HR case, if her complain is: "I would really like not to be trauma dumped on in my work place, that man is not my friend, we're not close like that, so if he could refrain from sharing serious issues of such nature with me, that would be great". That sounds reasonable and valid, to me. 

Now, to twist that situation and claim it was actual sexual harrassment . Again, I don't know how far the definition for "sexual harrassment" stretches in the United States. But in my country it strictly refers to repeated, unsolicited, unwelcomed, inappropriate, sexual ~advances~. Adressing sex in any capacity would not consitute sexual harrassment here, there has to be sexual intent for it to be considered an actual offense. 

Maybe it is different there, IDK. 

[salty like sodium 1,318]

7 hours ago, Ivy said:

Yeah this turned out to allegedly be him sharing about experience from when he was young when he was the victim, and Blake framed it leaving that part out, to make it like he was the perpetrator

Ofc him telling her about it still could have made her uncomfortable, so that part could be true

it's not just that, from what she said she also claims he said because he had an experience when he was young where his girlfriend pressured him into it, he then replicated that behaviour on future girlfriends or something like that. if you de-extrapolate what he probably said is he wasn't necessarily always aware of what true consent actually looks like (which let's be honest, pretty much no man is aware of that without proper training since men are not trained to accept that people might not want sex ) - but that's definitely a conversation that could be uncomfortable.

another thing that comes to mind is the time he asked her if she'd ever watched p*rn or not. i can see a context where that question comes up (if he is discussing his past addiction and she says "oh i wouldn't know, i've never watched it") – but i can see how that's also a conversation that could make someone feel uncomfortable.

my 2 cents is she wasn't aware he used to be a p*rn addict and when she found out she automatically assumed he was a deviant pervert and everything went downhill from there.

Edited Friday at 05:02 AM by salty like sodium

[FrederickSpears 2,090]

He learned real quick that you don't mess with TayTay.