Another great article written by Rydus on Medium:

"In the early years of PerezHilton.com, he published hand-drawn doodles on paparazzi photos, nicknames for stars, and insider rumors that spread faster than any print tabloid could follow. His irreverence earned him both millions of readers and a reputation for cruelty. He outed closeted celebrities, mocked young performers, and ran commentary that many critics described as harassment disguised as humor. Yet the same tactics that brought outrage also brought traffic, sponsorships, and celebrity visibility.

That legacy still shapes the ethics of entertainment reporting today. Hilton’s approach — immediate, emotional, and personal — set the tone for an entire generation of digital gossip outlets. The story no longer needed to be confirmed; it only needed to be clickable."

"In December 2024, Blake Lively filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing It Ends With Us director and co-star Justin Baldoni of sexual harassment and workplace retaliation. Her complaint detailed repeated inappropriate comments, unwanted physical contact, and an incident in which Baldoni entered her trailer while she was nursing. Another producer was alleged to have shown her a graphic childbirth video as a “creative reference.”

Baldoni denied all allegations. In February 2025, he and his company, Wayfarer Studios, filed a US $400 million countersuit against Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds, accusing them of defamation and civil extortion. That countersuit was dismissed in June 2025 under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, with the judge ruling that Lively’s statements in her legal filings were protected speech."

"Within that broader litigation, Lively’s legal team subpoenaed several online commentators, including Perez Hilton, to determine whether Baldoni or his associates had coordinated or encouraged a digital smear campaign against her. The subpoena sought communications and payment records, arguing that Hilton’s unusually high volume of negative posts about Lively could indicate collusion. Hilton denied any connection to Baldoni’s team. Representing himself initially, he invoked Nevada’s journalist-shield laws and federal reporter’s privilege, asserting that his coverage relied solely on public filings and personal opinion. In September 2025, after he retained representation from the ACLU of Nevada, Lively’s team withdrew the subpoena."

"Hilton had become a central example of the blurred border between commentator and journalist — protected under press-freedom principles yet operating largely as an independent entertainer."

"The subpoena dispute renewed scrutiny of Hilton’s methods, not for illegality but for influence. His coverage of the Lively-Baldoni litigation was frequent, emotional, and timed to each filing. Posts carried personal commentary rather than neutral summaries. None of this violated law or policy, but it raised an old ethical question in new form: when coverage is driven by virality, does it still serve a journalistic function?"

"In the context of the Lively-Baldoni case, Hilton’s insistence on journalistic protection reflects an interesting paradox. He once rejected the title of journalist, calling himself “a commentator.” Yet when faced with legal scrutiny, he asserted the privileges of the press. That dual posture mirrors the entire entertainment-media landscape: the creator wants independence from institutional restraint but also the legitimacy of the institutions they replaced."

"Perez Hilton’s current relevance lies not in his notoriety but in what he represents. He is the bridge between the blogosphere of the 2000s and the influencer economy of the 2020s. His story is a map of how attention replaced authority and how the business model of gossip became the business model of media itself."

Not quite celeb legal drama yet but I think it's interesting she won't name the person. Does anyone else think it's because of the backlash and retaliation she has seen against vocal actresses such as Amber Heard and Blake Lively? It's sad to see powerful men not facing consequences because of fear of retaliation.

NYT Article Archive Link

Quotes from Article:

"An associate of the firm, which has been accused of running a smear campaign against the actress Blake Lively, promised to suppress negative stories about Robert F. Kennedy Jr., records show".

"When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was seeking the nomination to become health secretary, he consulted with a crisis communications firm that has been accused of running a smear campaign against the actress Blake Lively, according to records unsealed on Friday in Manhattan federal court".

"The records show that a strategist associated with the firm, The Agency Group, promised in late 2024 to help suppress negative stories about Mr. Kennedy, boost positive ones and create an algorithm “to manage concerns” related to negative publicity".

Kjersti Flaa following a formula to turn herself into the central character of her "stories" and dramatizations in a shift from journalism to content creator:

"Each piece follows a similar formula: a resurfaced clip, an emotional reaction, and an appeal to the pressures faced by journalists in celebrity media."

"Flaa’s channel is monetized through YouTube’s Partner Program, meaning every spike in viewership yields direct financial gain. Her subscriber count rose sharply after the Lively clip, an outcome difficult to separate from motive even if not explicitly intentional."

"What once distinguished journalism from commentary, editorial judgment about what constitutes news, is eroded by algorithms that reward consistency rather than discretion."

"Traditional ethics emphasize accuracy, fairness, and independence. Digital platforms emphasize presence, authenticity, and connection. Flaa’s career sits at their intersection, forcing uncomfortable questions about where journalism ends and self-promotion begins."

"Her defenders see adaptability, a journalist surviving in a collapsing media economy. Her detractors see exploitation, a professional transforming private discomfort into perpetual content. Both views contain truth, depending on how one defines journalism’s purpose in an era of clicks, algorithms, and blurred accountability."

"Kjersti Flaa’s story is not about one feud or one viral video; it is about the changing moral geometry of media. In a landscape where visibility equals value, the temptation to turn every interaction into content is nearly impossible to resist. Flaa’s career captures that shift, from reporting to reacting, from documentation to dramatization."

"Whether she is seen as a victim of Hollywood gatekeeping or an architect of her own controversies depends on one’s expectations of journalists in a platform economy. But one fact is clear: the more the medium rewards constant reaction, the harder it becomes to tell where professional reporting ends and self-amplification begins."

It’s become a trend in recent years for individuals who are accused of harassment, sexual assault, or domestic violence, to sue their victims for defamation and prevent them from reporting or speaking about their experiences. The trend is incredibly harmful to victims because it prevents them from coming forward and often results in them facing serious financial and reputational harm at the hands of their abuser.

This trend largely originated or was made popular by the Depp v Heard lawsuit. In 2022, Johnny Depp sued Amber Heard for defamation for an op-ed she had penned about her personal experiences. She wrote about the importance of protecting victims and the way society often lashes at victims. She never mentions Johnny Depp by name, nor lists any specific actions Depp took against her. 

And yet, Depp sued her and claimed that the article caused damage to his reputation and cost him movie roles and ultimately tanked his career. Depp sued Amber Heard for several times her net worth, and dragged her through a lengthy legal process that ultimately resulted in her being publicly shamed and dragged for statements that never referred to Depp. 

Amber Heard spoke only about her own experiences and feelings, and did not disparage anyone by name or implication. Yet she was punished through a defamatory lawsuit and trial that retraumatized her and made her relive many of those same negative experiences, all while draining her financially and damaging her reputation.

This very same type of lawsuit has been used in countless cases by abusers to silence their victims and prevent them from talking about their own experiences or in some cases punishing them for simply reporting the abuse even if it’s to proper authorities.

An example is a slew of defamation cases on college campuses led by professors against students who have alleged sexual harassment. Elyse Dorsey and Angela Landry were sued by their professor Joshua Wright for coming forward and making complaints about Wright’s inappropriate conduct towards them. Both students alleged that Wright pressured them to engage in non-consensual relationships in exchange for advancing their careers. Both women allege they feared to end the relationships for the repercussions Wright could inflict on them.

In response to these allegations, Wright sued both women for defamation. Dorsey ended up settling before trial, and Wright later dropped the remaining claims against Landry. However, the outcome is disappointing as it represents an instance when not one but two women were silenced and punished for speaking on their personal experiences.

In a country where free speech is a cornerstone of our constitution, why are individuals allowed to silence others for speaking about things that have happened to them?

What happened to Elyse Dorsey, Amanda Landry, and Amber Heard is only the start of a widespread social issue happening everywhere. Sexual harassment, sexual assault, and domestic violence are already underreported, but the trend of weaponizing the legal system to further discourage and silence women who do come forward exacerbates the issue to new levels.

Survivors own the things that have happened to them and deserve to have their voices protected when they choose to speak on these issues or report these issues.

In Blake Lively’s case, she has never given a public statement alleging harassment. All of her own allegations come from her lawsuit she filed. And yet even though she filed a lawsuit and tried to seek justice through the legal system instead of socal media, she was still sued for defamation by Justin Baldoni for not even speaking on her experiences but for simply reporting the sexual harassment and misconduct at all.

People like Justin Baldoni should not be allowed to retaliate against victims to silence them and punish them for coming forward, and an important law connected to Blake Lively’s case could be the first step to fixing this glaring issue in our legal system.

47.1 is a statute passed in California in 2023 that seeks to protect victims from retaliatory defamation suits like the ones filed against Dorsey, Landry, Heard, and Lively. Those who filed defamatory lawsuits in response to allegations of sexual harassment, assault, or domestic violence, can end up having their suit thrown out and being ordered to pay their victim attorney fees and treble damages if the victim can prove that the claims they made were made in good faith and without malice. 

This law is the first of its kind and Lively’s lawsuit is the first case to which the law has been applied. No ruling has been issued yet, but the ruling will be pivotal to protecting victims and preserving their voices. Survivors of harassment, assault, and abuse should be able to come forward without the threat of their abuser weaponizing the legal system to silence them. 

A win for Lively on 47.1 is a win not just for her, but for all victims who fear speaking on their experience or reporting misconduct. 

Other women who were sued for defamation after coming forward:

• Kesha (sued by Dr. Luke)
• Taylor Swift (sued by David Mueller)
• Melanie Kohler (sued by Brett Ratner)
• Evan Rachel Wood (sued by Marilyn Manson)
• Illma Fore (sued by Marilyn Manson)
• Pamela Lopez (sued by Matt Dababneh)
• Monique Green (sued by Nelly)
• Brittney Taylor (sued by Antonio Brown)
• Jorgen Nielsen (sued by Steve Wynn)
• Leigh Corfman (sued by Roy Moore)
• Cara Taylor (sued by Daylin Leach)

Jed Wallace has filed his opening appellate brief in the Fifth Cir. Court of Appeals, seeking to overturn the Texas district court judge's dismissal of his defamation case against Lively.

Appellant's brief: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866.45.0.pdf

Designated record on appeal (consisting of dismissal order + his first amended complaint): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866.46.0.pdf

Full docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72053912/wallace-v-lively/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

Thought this was a great video that explained just how ridiculous that was. And we kept saying it, ans being told by their team he had the stronger case. The gaslighting we have experienced in this case.

Anyway, with some tine it feels like we forget how crazy some of those things were. And theur CC's and atorneys supporting it.

CA Gov. Newsom Signs MeToo Bill AB 933, Protecting Survivors from Predatory Defamation Lawsuits Meant to Silence Them

I originally wrote this up for a friend who knows I have followed this case and was interested in learning what it was about. I realized that this might be helpful for people who haven't read past the headlines, so I jazzed it up a bit to make it into a post. This explains in the broadest of strokes what Lively's lawsuit is about, and why it matters (or should matter) to the average person.

---

The long lived legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni finally has an end in sight, but what most people don’t seem to realize is that the seemingly endless conflict is far more than a silly celebrity feud.

At the core of it, Blake Lively’s lawsuit against Justin Baldoni and his PR team is about the right to a safe working environment, and the right to raise concerns about harassment without being retaliated against. 

Lively’s lawsuit is exceedingly simple. She—and multiple other women on the set of It Ends With Us—experienced sexual harassment by Justin Baldoni and Jamey Heath, and all raised concerns about the conduct and behavior. Only there wasn’t a single HR person hired to work on the production of the film. All HR related complaints were funneled up the chain of Wayfarer studios, to Justin Baldoni (the co-owner of the studio) and Jamey Heath (the CEO), the very individuals that those on set were raising concerns about.

How would the average person feel if they raised a concern at work about sexual harassment, only to find out that the person who harassed them is the one who handles complaints? It’s very easy to see how problematic that would be, and it’s exactly what happened to Blake Lively and others who raised concerns on set.

Counting HR Complaints Like Trump Counted COVID Cases

(There Can’t Be HR Complaints If There Is No HR)

Legally, Wayfarer (and Justin Baldoni and Jamey Heath), were obligated to investigate any and all concerns that they were made aware of. We know now from various documents and filings on the legal docket that Justin Baldoni and Jamey Heath were both fully aware of the issues on set and even went so far as to issue apologies and promise to do better in response to being made aware of them. But they never launched an official investigation, never brought in any HR personnel to document issues, and continued to engage in the behaviors on set despite the mounting number of complaints and increasingly toxic work environment. Baldoni himself went so far as to make a joke when Jenny Slate expressed discomfort at him telling Blake Lively she looked sexy during prep for a scene. After he was called out for commenting on his employee’s body, Baldoni rolled his eyes and told a group of cast and crew including Lively and Slate, “sorry I missed the HR meeting.”

In fact, most of the cast had missed the meeting because it was never held to begin with. Wayfarer studios was responsible for handling HR concerns and providing guidance to those on set, but despite having a PowerPoint presentation for this very purpose many of the cast who were deposed stated under oath that they had never been shown the content or given information on how to file complaints or who to contact in the event they had concerns.

What sort of workplace is so stacked against its employees? There is no harassment training even though this is standard in nearly every workplace and included in employee handbooks and manuals. But not only is there no training, there’s also no HR department, and all HR concerns are relayed to the co-owner and CEO of the company, who have a vested interest in suppressing complaints. Especially when the complaints are against themselves.

Alex Saks, a producer for the film, even testified during her deposition that when she first began relaying concerns about the issues on set to Jamey Heath he was receptive and apologetic. But as filming continued, Heath later informed her that it would be very bad for them if any of the complaints were in writing and implied they should not be documented.

A prevailing talking point related to this case has been that there were no HR complaints ever filed on set. Legal filings and evidence in this case prove concerns were raised, but Baldoni dismissed them, and Heath actively discouraged others from documenting them because he feared it would make them look bad.

There can’t be HR complaints if you don’t allow anyone to formally file them.

There Isn’t A Bring Your Porn Addiction To Work Day

(Someone Should Have Made Sure Justin Baldoni Knew This)

The concerns raised on set cover a series of interactions that range from things that could be written off as an awkward misunderstanding, to things that would make the head of Wayfarer’s HR (if they actually had one) lose their shit. For reference, here’s an assortment of things that happened on set. This is not an exhaustive list but only a snapshot of some of the behaviors. The judge ruling on this lawsuit acknowledged that each of these issues could reasonably constitute or contribute to a hostile work environment:

• Baldoni remarking on Lively and Slate’s appearance and referring to them multiple times as sexy
• Baldoni making a joke (as quoted above) when Slate spoke up and said commenting on actors’ bodies wasn’t appropriate or necessary
• Baldoni telling Slate, “I can say this because my wife is here, but you look sexy in what you’re wearing.”
• Heath entering Lively’s trailer while she was wearing only a thong. Heath knocked and was told by four women NOT to enter the trailer. He proceeded to do so anyway.
• Heath insisting Lively must allow him into her trailer or he would not meet with her to discuss her concerns. Then proceeding to stare at her naked body in a mirror.
• Heath and Baldoni insisting that Lively must be fully naked in order to film a birth scene. No nudity was written into the script, and according to SAG all scenes of this nature require prior written consent from the actor or actress. This was NOT obtained for this scene.
• Baldoni telling Lively that he and his wife orgasm together, and asking if she and Ryan Reynolds do as well.
• Baldoni telling Lively he knew all about porn because of his porn addiction.
• Baldoni reassuring Lively that the sexually explicit scenes he had added to the script without her consent were not porny. He—the guy with a porn addiction—would definitely know if they were porny.
• Baldoni relaying to cast and crew that Lively doesn’t watch porn (like Baldoni)

“So much fear of Blake coming out and going public about how I’m a bad person and unsafe and not who I say I am”

(A Real Live Text Justin Baldoni Sent To Other People)

Despite Justin Baldoni originally claiming that he was never aware of any complaints made on set, he later sent text messages to his PR team and Jamey Heath saying he was worried about the things Lively could say about him publicly, and how those things would be viewed. He was fully aware at this point that his actions were wrong and he was terrified other people might find out what he’d done.

So what did he do about it?

This is the part where normal people would take accountability, apologize, and finally hire the HR personnel they desperately needed to handle the concerns. Instead of doing this, Justin Baldoni and Jamey Heath doubled down on their own behaviors and hired a crisis PR team right around the time promotion for the film ramped up.

They hired a PR team that wrote that “we can bury her,” and then proceeded to do exactly that. If you step back for a second and really think about it, the PR campaign is actually excellent. None of the facts in the legal filings make Baldoni look good. He never even really denies engaging in many of the alleged behaviors. His defense since the beginning has always been that hey, these things happened, but Blake Lively is kind of a bitch, so…

And it’s worked astonishingly well. The average person can’t state what the major claims are in her case, nor do they know most of the information covered in this breakdown (Justin Baldoni and Jamey Heath handling their own HR complaints, the lack of harassment training in general, the fact that multiple women testified under oath in their depositions to Justin Baldoni and Jamie Heath’s behaviors, the laundry list of things that are clearly sexual harassment).

A quick cruise across the internet or social media concerning this topic dredges up countless click bait articles, acerbicly titled videos, and assorted Tik Tok personalities offering legal breakdowns despite having no legal expertise. The vast majority of this content is anti-Lively, and curiously features the same set of talking points. Lively is a bully, Lively is a mean girl, Lively is tone deaf, Lively lied about everything, Lively stole the movie, Lively is a bitch. There are no facts to be found, and the biggest concerns seem to be where Lively got married, or how Lively behaved in an interview recorded over a decade ago. 

Content creators and Tik Tok “lawyers” have made coverage of this case their entire personality and appear to be more credible sources of information. They often pick through the actual legal filings on their videos, but they rarely evaluate the legal filings in their entirety. Instead, they zero in on specific and often irrelevant details and hyperfixate on them to create a narrative that ignores much of the information on the legal docket. An example is VanZan, or VanSham, which is what a lot of content creators called a subpoena that was filed by Lively before she sued Justin Baldoni.

This subpoena was lawful and filed by an entity owned by Blake Lively and Reybolds and it was used to collect some of the earliest information on the smear campaign. CC’s claimed for months on end that there never was a subpoena, that Lively had illegally obtained information, that her entire case was about to be thrown out, her lawyers would be sanctioned, and Lively might even be thrown into jail! This was the nail in the coffin of Blake Lively’s case. 

Except after weeks of fervently proclaiming this everyone suddenly stopped talking about it and never mentioned it again. VanZan was nothing but content for the PR cycle, and the moment the topic had served its purpose, content creators completely blocked out this supposedly pivotal part of the case in favor of harping on the next big thing (like Taylor Swift, her texts, and oh yeah her deposition that never happened).

In defense of the smear campaign accusation, Juistin Baldoni and his PR team insisted that the backlash against Lively has been purely organic. But what about that pesky paper trail that leads directly from Justin Baldoni’s team to various content creators who have profited off their coverage of this case?

For example, Popcorned Planet, a YouTube channel run by a creator who was himself accused of sexual harassment, boldly claimed that he had no contact with Justin Baldoni’s legal or PR team. However, a judge in Florida revealed that he had actually exchanged hundreds of messages with a member of Baldoni’s PR team. 

Another filing revealed that Bryan Freedman, Justin Baldoni’s lawyer, sent information directly to Sage Steele, who runs a YouTube channel called The Sage Steele Show. The creator posted a lengthy episode titled “Shame on Blake Lively and the New York Times,” where she relays disparaging information about Blake Lively at Freedman’s direction.
Maybe not everyone likes Blake Lively, but not this many people hate her. There’s a busy busy busy PR team that wants to make the world believe she’s the absolute worst, but she’s just not the witch they’ve made her out to be.

You Probably Forgot What We Were Talking About

(Girl keep up, It’s About Your Right To a Safe Workplace)

Blake Lively raised valid concerns about inappropriate behaviour at work, but instead of investigating these complaints as he was legally obligated to do, Baldoni dismissed the concerns and made jokes about them. 

Then, after months of bad behavior, Justin Baldoni panicked because he finally realized that sexual harassment is in fact, a pretty bad look. Especially when you’ve built your brand on being a feminist. Justin Baldoni then hired a crisis PR team “to bury” Blake Lively in the press and silence her.

The thing is… Blake Lively has to date never given a public interview or statement discussing the things that occurred on set. Even during filming, she never relayed to those outside of a select few close friends and colleagues what was happening. She completed the press and promotional tour for the movie and never publicly spoke a single bad word about Justin Baldoni during that time. The only reason anyone knows about the allegations is because Lively filed a lawsuit about them, and began the litigation process.

Lively just wanted what most people want—to be able to go to work and do their job without being harassed—but Justin Baldoni and his colleagues failed to create a safe workplace and investigate complaints even though they were legally obligated to do so.

To add insult to injury, they retaliated against Lively because they were scared she might do something crazy like tell people who they actually were. This is also illegal, because reporting sexual harassment or forms of discrimination is a protected activity. You cannot and should not be punished for raising concerns, but Lively’s reputation is currently in tatters because of Baldoni’s crisis PR team and their efforts to punish and silence her for raising concerns on set.

The thing about the Lively lawsuit is that it comes off as a silly celebrity feud, but for women in particular, Lively’s case is a kind of horror story about what can happen when you raise valid concerns about harassment. Legally everyone in the workplace is supposed to be able to come forward and raise complaints about things like sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination without threat of retaliation. But when Lively spoke up, Justin Baldoni retaliated by trying to silence her. Even with so many facts on Lively’s side, her legal battle has been a lengthy struggle that still may not end in her favor.

If Blake Lively—a Met Gala darling, an A-List celebrity, a wealthy and privileged individual—can’t land a resounding victory in court for what is clear sexual harassment and retaliation, what hope does anyone else have?