r/ItEndsWithLawsuits

📍Wallace v Lively: Jed Wallace moves for a leave to file Rebuttal Evidence in support of his Reply u/same-difference-ave

📍Wallace v Lively: Jed Wallace files a response to Blake Lively’s Opposition to his Deposition request u/same-difference-ave

⚖️ Wallace Seeks Permission to File New Rebuttal Evidence (0:00–0:52)

• Blake Lively’s Texas dispute with Jed Wallace continues, with Wallace’s attorney filing a motion seeking permission to submit rebuttal evidence.
• The request responds to arguments Lively made while opposing Wallace’s motion to compel her deposition.
• Wallace wants the court to consider additional portions of Lively’s deposition transcript from Lively v. Wayfarer, along with email exchanges between Babcock and Lively’s attorneys.
• According to LGA, the evidence is intended to directly rebut claims Lively made in her opposition.

⏱️ Lively Says Wallace Already Had His Chance to Depose Her (0:52–1:38)

• Lively’s opposition argued that Wallace already had an opportunity to question her during her deposition in the New York litigation.
• Her side also raised arguments concerning Wallace’s previous efforts or alleged lack of efforts to obtain discovery in the Texas case.
• Wallace disputes that characterization and argues the newly submitted transcript demonstrates that his questioning of Lively was strictly limited in both time and scope.
• Babcock’s position is that Jed's previous opportunity was not sufficient to investigate the issue now relevant to Lively’s California Civil Code §47.1 fee request: malice.

🕖 The Transcript Shows Babcock Received About One Hour (1:38–2:48)

• LGA says the newly revealed transcript provides more detail about the strict seven-hour limit imposed on Lively’s deposition.
• Babcock began questioning Lively at approximately 6:42 p.m.
• At approximately 7:44 p.m., Lively’s attorney said the seven-hour limit had been reached and ended the deposition.
• When Babcock attempted to ask two additional questions, Lively’s counsel refused and stated that the deposition was being adjourned.
• LGA highlights this because Wallace is now arguing that his previous opportunity to question Lively amounted to only about one hour.

📜 Babcock Preserved His Request for More Deposition Time (2:48–4:18)

• Before the deposition concluded, Babcock made a statement on the record objecting to the limited time available to Wallace.
• He noted that an amended complaint containing significant changes had been provided shortly before the deposition and said Wallace had only been permitted approximately one hour of questioning.
• Importantly, Babcock expressly stated that Wallace could later seek a court order reconvening Lively’s deposition if necessary.
• Lively’s attorney responded that the court had already established a single seven-hour deposition and that Wallace’s counsel had previously indicated one hour would be sufficient.
• Her side maintained that Wallace could have asked whatever relevant questions he wanted during that allocated hour.
• Babcock responded that if Wallace remained in the litigation, they might seek additional time later, which is exactly what Jed is now doing.

🎯 Wallace Says the First Deposition Wasn't About Malice (4:18–5:31)

• Babcock argues that Wallace’s previous questioning was focused primarily on personal jurisdiction and issues relevant to the earlier litigation, rather than developing evidence concerning Lively’s state of mind or alleged malice.
• Wallace now argues that malice has become important because Lively is seeking attorney’s fees under §47.1.
• Babcock points to his earlier statement on the deposition record as evidence that Wallace preserved the possibility of seeking additional questioning.
• He also submitted email exchanges from June and July to rebut Lively’s arguments concerning previous communications about discovery.
• LGA believes the requested evidence is narrowly tailored to the specific factual assertions made in Lively’s opposition.

🔎 New Deposition Testimony: Lively Points to Stephanie Jones (5:31–6:51)

• The filing also reveals previously unseen portions of Lively’s deposition concerning Jed Wallace’s work.
• Lively had previously described Wallace’s work as “clandestine,” prompting Babcock to ask who had given her that characterization.
• According to the newly revealed testimony, Lively identified Stephanie Jones as someone who told her about the nature of Wallace’s work and how he operated.
• Lively also referenced attorneys and later indicated she may have seen messages involving Jennifer Abel or Melissa Nathan.
• Why was Stephanie Jones communicating with Blake Lively, and when did those communications occur?

📄 More of Lively’s Deposition Remains Redacted (6:51–7:42)

• LGA cautions that the filing does not suddenly reveal Lively’s entire deposition.
• Significant portions remain redacted, meaning additional information remains unavailable**,** and its importance cannot yet be determined.
• She also highlights a lighter exchange in which Babcock questioned Lively about Wallace and Street Relations being named in her California CRD complaint.
• After referring sarcastically to Lively’s attorney Esra Hudson as her “outstanding lawyer,” Hudson objected.

🔥 LGA Thinks the Texas Fight Is Becoming Riskier for Lively (7:42–8:30)

• LGA thinks that Lively may continue pursuing the Texas fee dispute until Judge Liman rules on her fee request in New York.
• LGA speculates that if Lively receives a substantial award that produces favorable headlines, Lively could potentially decide that continuing to pursue fees against Wallace is no longer worthwhile.
• However, LGA believes the Texas litigation is currently moving in an increasingly risky direction for Lively.
• If the Texas court grants Wallace’s request for limited discovery, Lively could be required to sit for another deposition, this time focused on issues relevant to malice and §47.1.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.63.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.64.0.pdf

Exhibit A - Counsel Emails - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.64.1.pdf

Exhibit B - Blake Lively SDNY Deposition Excerpt(Redacted) - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.64.2.pdf

Proposed Order - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.65.0.pdf

⚖️🔓 Little Girl Attorney - Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel Update: Judge Liman Orders Documents Unsealed as Wayfarer Moves to Dismiss Jones’ Lingering John Doe Defamation Claim

🥱😴😑🫩NotActuallyGolden - Stephanie Jones’ “Dead” Defamation Claim: Wayfarer Asks Judge Liman to Finally Dismiss the John Doe Claim After Jones Failed to Drop It

📍 Jones v. Abel: Wayfarer files Motion to Dismiss Jones’ 8th Cause of Action - Defamation against Doe Defendants 1-10 u/same-difference-ave

📍Jones v. Abel: Liman orders parties to refile public versions of exhibits by August 24th in resolution of pending sealing motions u/same-difference-ave

⚖️ Wayfarer’s Motion a “Duh Moment” (0:01–0:22)

• NAG describes the latest motion in Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel as fairly straightforward.
• The defendants are essentially telling the court that Stephanie Jones has a “dead claim” still sitting on the docket.
• Jones had previously indicated that the claim would be dismissed, but because that apparently never happened, the defendants are now asking Judge Liman to formally dismiss it.

🌐 The John Doe Defamation Claim & the Stephanie Jones Websites (0:22–1:12)

• One of Stephanie Jones’ original claims was a defamation claim against John Does 1–10, unidentified defendants she alleged were connected to StephanieJonesLeaks and StephanieJonesLies.com.
• Jones suspected that Jennifer Abel and Melissa Nathan had some involvement but initially needed discovery to determine who could actually be held responsible.
• After obtaining discovery, Jones eventually sought to amend her complaint and replace the unidentified John Doe defendant with Melissa Nathan.
• According to NAG, Jones was essentially attempting to allege that Nathan was legally responsible for the websites rather than continuing against unidentified defendants.

🚫 Judge Liman Previously Refused to Let Jones Add Melissa Nathan (1:12–1:40)

• The problem, NAG explains, was timing: Jones sought to amend the complaint after the deadline for amending pleadings had passed.
• Judge Liman found that Jones had possessed the relevant information for months and could have sought the amendment earlier.
• The court therefore denied her request to substitute Melissa Nathan for the John Doe defendant.
• As a result, Jones was left with a claim against unidentified people whom she could no longer replace with the person she wanted to name.

💀 NAG Says the Claim Is Essentially “Dead” (1:40–2:05)

• NAG says this leaves the defamation claim in an unusual but simple position: it technically exists on the docket but has nowhere meaningful to go.
• Jones cannot realistically proceed to trial against unidentified defendants who have never actually been named or appeared in the case.
• Wayfarer contacted Stephanie Jones’ attorneys and asked them to voluntarily drop the claim.
• According to the defendants’ motion, Jones’ attorneys indicated they would do so, but the dismissal never happened.

📑 Wayfarer Gives Judge Liman Multiple Ways to Dismiss It (2:05–2:38)

• The motion provides Judge Liman with several different procedural mechanisms he could use to dismiss the remaining claim.
• Although motions to dismiss are more commonly seen earlier in litigation, NAG notes that they can arise later depending on the circumstances.
• NAG's takeaway from the filing is that the defendants are essentially saying the precise procedural route does not matter—the John Doe claim simply needs to go.

🤔 Why Is Stephanie Jones Still Holding Onto It? (2:38–3:13)

• NAG would not be surprised if Stephanie Jones simply withdraws the claim in response to the motion rather than fighting over it.
• Even if Jones believes she has identified someone responsible for the websites, Judge Liman has already ruled that she cannot amend the complaint to name that person at this stage.
• NAG briefly speculates that there could be settlement discussions happening behind the scenes and that Jones’ side might view the unresolved claim as some form of leverage, but NAG emphasizes that this is only a possibility.

⚖️🔓 Little Girl Attorney - Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel Update: Judge Liman Orders Documents Unsealed as Wayfarer Moves to Dismiss Jones’ Lingering John Doe Defamation Claim

🥱😴😑🫩NotActuallyGolden - Stephanie Jones’ “Dead” Defamation Claim: Wayfarer Asks Judge Liman to Finally Dismiss the John Doe Claim After Jones Failed to Drop It

📍 Jones v. Abel: Wayfarer files Motion to Dismiss Jones’ 8th Cause of Action - Defamation against Doe Defendants 1-10 u/same-difference-ave

📍Jones v. Abel: Liman orders parties to refile public versions of exhibits by August 24th in resolution of pending sealing motions u/same-difference-ave

🔓 Judge Liman Orders More Jones v. Abel Documents Unsealed (0:00–1:18)

• There are two new developments on the Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel docket, beginning with the dispute over documents currently under seal.
• The court previously asked the parties to explain which materials, if any, still needed to remain sealed.
• Stephanie Jones told the court she did not object to the documents being unsealed.
• The Wayfarer parties took a narrower position, arguing that certain materials contain personally identifying information and should remain sealed consistent with Judge Liman’s previous rulings in Lively v. Wayfarer.
• Judge Liman has now ruled that materials he previously determined should remain sealed will continue to be protected, while everything else should be unsealed.
• LGA says it is difficult to know how significant this will be until the documents actually become public, although there could still be material that has not previously been seen.

⚖️ Wayfarer Moves to Dismiss the Remaining John Doe Defamation Claim (1:18–2:17)

• LGA says the more interesting development is a new motion to dismiss filed by the Wayfarer parties.
• The motion targets the unidentified John Doe defendants and the remaining defamation claim against them.
• When Stephanie Jones originally filed her lawsuit approximately 19 months ago, she alleged unidentified individuals were responsible for creating and disseminating websites including Stephanie Jones Leaks and StephanieJonesLies.com.
• Because Jones said she did not yet know who was responsible, she initially brought the defamation claim against unnamed John Doe defendants with the expectation that their identities could later be discovered.

🚫 Jones Previously Tried to Substitute Melissa Nathan—but the Court Said No (2:09–2:39)

• Stephanie Jones subsequently attempted to identify Melissa Nathan as one of the John Doe defendants.
• Judge Liman refused to permit the amendment.
• The court found Jones had unduly delayed, failed to demonstrate good cause and had not been sufficiently diligent in determining the defendants’ identities.
• However, that ruling did not technically eliminate the original defamation claim against the unidentified John Does, leaving the claim sitting on the docket.

🧩 Wayfarer Says the John Doe Claim Has Nowhere Left to Go (2:39–3:21)

• LGA explains that because nobody formally moved to dismiss the remaining John Doe claim, it technically continued to exist despite the court preventing Jones from substituting Melissa Nathan.
• The Wayfarer parties argue that Jones has not identified another defendant, pursued the necessary discovery, or otherwise developed the claim.
• That creates a procedural loose end: even if there is effectively nobody for Jones to pursue at trial, the claim remains part of the case until it is formally dismissed.
• The Wayfarer parties therefore asked Jones to voluntarily dismiss it.

🤔 Jones Allegedly Agreed to Dismiss It—but Didn't (3:21–4:10)

• According to the Wayfarer parties’ filing, they initially asked for the claim to be dismissed in April.
• Jones apparently did not agree until late June, when the Wayfarer parties say she finally indicated she would dismiss it.
• However, according to their motion, Jones never actually followed through with the dismissal.
• LGA says she currently cannot see a clear reason Judge Liman would deny Wayfarer's request: Jones allegedly has not prosecuted the claim, pursued discovery identifying the John Does, and had already agreed to dismiss it.
• If Stephanie Jones files an opposition, LGA says that may finally explain why the claim has remained on the docket despite her apparent agreement to let it go.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.263.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.261.0.pdf

Declaration of Ellyn Garofalo - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.262.0.pdf

Exhibit A - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.262.1.pdf

Exhibit B - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.262.2.pdf

Daily Mail Article's title and link : Insider: Taylor Swift's baby plans and brutal 'slap in the face' for Blake - dated August 17, 2026

💭🤔Usually not into this kind of tea, but I found the PR for this one quite interesting! "Insider closed to Swift" is cited which very likely comes from Taylor's PR. The message that reached me is that although Blake has been a friend of Taylor's for years, the loss of this friendship is far from being the end of the world for Taylor and she has still has her rock which has been Selena for long, long years. The fact that the article mentions at length that Blake and Selena were not getting along during Blake and Taylor's friendship years also hints at the fact that Taylor has more than one way of being a friend and the best of her was and is in her friendship with Selena.

Excerpts below :

'Taylor and Selena are very close. They're like sisters,' one insider close to Swift, 36, told the Daily Mail. 'For almost 20 years they've been there for each other on a personal and professional level. Selena's always been someone Taylor can trust 100 percent. They have a bond that's never been broken.'

So deep is their bond, it is perhaps understandable that they now want to experience motherhood together – and have made it clear they will be godparents to their respective future children.

'Taylor and Selena have agreed they want to have their babies as close time wise to each other as possible so they can bring them up together,' our insider said. 'They've essentially made a pact that they will be godmother to each other's children.'

(...)

But even if Lively and Swift's friendship was still solid, it is unlikely Lively and her children would have spent time with Swift, Gomez and their respective children, given that Lively and Gomez have seemingly never been seen together with the Cruel Summer singer.

By the time 38-year-old Lively entered Swift's orbit in 2015, Gomez had already been the singer's friend for years. But Swift's birthday bashes, Fourth of July parties, NFL game appearances and New Years Eve celebrations, to name but a few, have only ever been attended by Lively or Gomez – never both. In fact, there do not seem to be any photographs of the trio.

Most recently, Gomez attended Swift's New York City wedding to Travis Kelce – Lively did not.

(...)

Over the past decade, Gomez, who is a godmother to her cousin Priscilla's two children, has seemingly only ever made one reference to Lively, and there is no evidence of Lively ever mentioning Gomez.

In a 2016 interview with Elle magazine, Gomez was asked who of her friends she would 'trade her with' if she had the chance. She named Lively.

'I wish she was my friend, but she's not my friend,' she said. 'Blake Lively. I've never met her, but I just love her hair. I think she's got beautiful, effortless hair. I think she's super beachy.'

It would seem that those feelings, however, have waned, with the Daily Mail exposing their apparent bad blood in April 2024. At the time, insiders claimed that the two were not friends, didn't 'mix' and were 'constantly avoiding run-ins with each other.'

But for all the tension between Gomez and Lively – and the breakdown of Swift's friendship with the It Ends With Us star – a second insider insisted that Swift choosing to make Gomez the godmother of her children 'wouldn't be done to shade Blake.'

'Taylor is very confident in her friendship with Selena and doesn't worry about having any falling out,' the source said.

✏️EDIT TO ADD THIS EXCERPT I OVERLOOKED AND WHICH MAY WELL BE THE MOST INTERESTING PART AS SOMEONE POINTED OUT : it is below acknowledged as from Taylor Swift's viewpoint, that it is Blake who dragged Taylor into the lawsuits, not Justin :

Last month, the Daily Mail was told that Swift felt she had 'no choice' but to 'remove herself' from the position after her decade-long friendship with Lively was severed, seemingly beyond repair, after the actress dragged Swift into her legal battle with her It Ends with us co-star Justin Baldoni.

Using the death of someone she hasn't even worked with (Hayden) to remind people to be kind after dragging Justin Baldoni through the mud with lies the last year and a half. She is delusional

Saw today at my local GW lol

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.0.pdf

Exhibit 170-B - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.1.pdf

Exhibit 195-7 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.2.pdf

Exhibit 195-8 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.3.pdf

Exhibit 195-13 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.4.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.258.0.pdf

This particular creator has publicly claimed multiple pro Wayfarer content creators are part of the "smear campaign"

The DailyMail did not do that.

They did not say these creators were working for Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively.

So what's the problem here? 🤨

They supported the New York Times and Megan Twohey. They should also be supporting the Daily Mail.

Reporters doing what reporters do, right?

This space is to discuss all things relevant to the case and those involved. Please feel free to ask all types of questions, or share thoughtful opinions and theories.

This case is complex, and it can be difficult to both keep up with, and remember all the facts and details. New members or those wanting  clarification about anything are welcome to post here too.

If you have concerns about sub rules and/or sub moderation, please reach out via modmail.

This thread is designed to help promote productive conversation and also avoid off-topic or low-effort posts. Please keep things civil and respectful for the community

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6RbSOVOZ8k

Came across this video and thought it summed up something worth discussing. It pushes back on a response a lot of Baldoni defenders get online — that if you're defending him, you've simply "fallen for propaganda."

The core argument: accusing someone of being manipulated isn't actually an argument, it's a way of avoiding one. If you want to claim someone fell for propaganda, you need to show what evidence was manipulated, what was omitted, and how that leads to a false conclusion. Instead, the move skips all of that — disagreement itself gets treated as proof you've been manipulated. That makes it a "self-sealing" argument: there's no way to ever demonstrate independent reasoning, because any explanation you give just gets read as more evidence of the manipulation.

The video also points to a related pattern — when facts don't lead to the "right" conclusion, the conversation shifts from evidence to character, e.g. "you're a misogynist," "you just want to defend men." The speaker's response: gender doesn't determine guilt or innocence, and agreeing with a man in one specific case says nothing about how someone feels about women generally. Framing it that way conveniently means evidence only matters until someone reaches an opinion you don't like — at which point you're stuck defending your character instead of discussing the facts.

There's also a turn where the speaker flips the propaganda framing back around, bringing up things like coordinated social media engagement (e.g., high-profile figures like Megamind liking/boosting small accounts posting favorably) as arguably closer to the actual mechanics of propaganda than just reading available information and forming a conclusion.

Ends with an invitation for actual good-faith pushback — challenge the reasoning and evidence, not the person's character.

The creator's take is measured and very well-articulated.

They watched the Solar Eclipse in Iceland!

Here we go again!

Last week, I was forced to publicly defend myself against accusations that I was working for Justin Baldoni.

You all witnessed a pro-Blake content creator take innocent interactions and my post summarizing Lauren's James Scott video, strip them of context, then turn them into a false narrative that I was somehow coordinating with Justin's team, even after I showed evidence directly contradicting that story. You all know how angry I was.

So imagine my surprise when, a week later, people supposedly on my "side" began accusing me of the complete fucking opposite. According to some of you, I guess now I work for Ryan Reynolds.

I would genuinely love to know when I’m supposed to receive a paycheck from all of these people I allegedly work for. Run me my money because I'm a single mother and broke af.

I'm literally a mod of Team JB. In that role, I've done my best to conduct myself in a way that reflects the standards I believe we are defending when we defend Justin, which includes fairness, evidence, decency, accountability, and not smearing people simply because you have decided you disagree with them.

I have also tried to protect the members of Team JB. Sometimes that has meant defending our members from harassment, addressing when WE got something wrong, or drawing boundaries that are unpopular. And sometimes, it means telling people on our own side, "No, we're not doing that here."

I have never believed that being a good mod means blindly validating every accusation or behavior made by someone who hates Blake. That's literally why you guys aren't allowed to comment on her body in Team JB My responsibility is not to prove how "anti-Blake" I am. It is to protect this community and uphold the principles that made me support Justin in the first place.

So after watching me do that and voluntarily spend my time defending and protecting this community, and literally days after watching Blake supporters accuse me of secretly working for Justin, some of you have now decided that because I won't validate your delusions about the mods of this sub, I must secretly be working for Ryan.

Um... okay??? How the fuck did we even get here in the first place?

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with noticing that something might seem weird and asking questions. God knows I've spent enough time looking into weird behavior on Reddit myself.

But there is a massive fucking difference between asking questions and deciding on the answer first, then treating everything that follows as proof you were right. This is textbook confirmation bias and is exactly where our community is starting to lose the plot.

You are allowed to think the rules of the sub are ridiculous and you are allowed to vocalize your opinion.

However, let's be very specific about what some people are actually mad about, because I think this has all gotten wildly distorted.

The mods have asked users not to use MJ's last name. That's it. You can still talk about MJ, you can still criticize MJ, you can still fact-check her content, disagree with her "legal" analysis, criticize the things she says publicly, and discuss her role in commentary surrounding this case.

Everyone knows who "MJ" is. No one is being prevented from discussing her.

The restriction is specifically that users have been asked not to use her last name because she is also connected to a Reddit identity, and the mods are trying to navigate Reddit's rules and guidance around discussing public content creators who are also current or former Reddit users.

I completely understand why you all think this rule is ridiculous.

Her name is public, she publicly creates content under her name, she has appeared publicly discussing this case. I get it, I do. So you're allowed to criticize that, say the rule is overly cautious, that Reddit's policies make no sense, and that maybe the mods are taking a more conservative approach than you personally would.

But it makes no fucking sense to risk the sub's safety or existence by breaking a rule just because you personally disagree with it. Because guess what? The mods themselves have admitted that they are ALSO frustrated with the double standards Reddit keeps applying to the sub. IEWL has gotten into trouble before. We were at risk of having all of our content nuked. This isn't a secret; the mods have been very transparent about that. They have LEGITIMATE reasons to be extremely careful about Reddit's rules because they don't want the sub to be taken down.

So what exactly is the more reasonable explanation here?

That a mod team whose sub has already gotten into trouble with Reddit, who has publicly acknowledged being frustrated with Reddit's guidance, and who has literally told everyone they are trying to get clarification from Reddit is being overly cautious because they don't want their community nuked?

OR that Stephanie Jones, Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, Nick Shapiro, or whoever the fuck else has somehow infiltrated a Reddit mod team and is secretly directing them to make you type "MJ" instead of her last name?

Come on.

Again, you do not have to agree with the rule. The mods don't like the situation they're in either. You are completely free to complain that the rule is dumb while still respecting it so that THEY are not the ones who have to deal with the consequences of you deciding Reddit's rules shouldn't apply.

It is completely illogical to deliberately break a clearly communicated rule, receive the predictable moderation response, and then point to that response as evidence that there's some secret conspiracy happening. At that point, you are manufacturing your own evidence and victimizing yourself in a completely preventable situation.

I am done with these conspiracy theories. Because seriously, what could the mods even do atp to convince you they are NOT secretly working for whoever you've decided is pulling the strings? The mods are all operating under anonymous accounts specifically because moderating this community has already made them targets. They were protecting themselves from Blake supporters. Some of you have made it so that they now need to protect themselves from us too.

The mods are not some random strangers who appeared yesterday. They've been part of the community since the beginning. We've all interacted with them and trusted them enough to participate in these spaces. If you knew who our mods actually were, I promise you'd feel SO silly for accusing them of being bought by Blake or Ryan because again, they've been here with us the whole time. But that doesn’t mean you’re entitled to keep trying to figure out who they are because one extremely problematic, disgruntled user with a vendetta keeps feeding you conspiracy theories that some of you have inexplicably decided to run with.

The mods are people who have spent their own time maintaining a space that gave us somewhere to openly criticize Blake when we felt overly censored everywhere else. So now because they've asked us not to type one woman's last name while they wait for clarification, some of you have decided that they're suspicious and working for Ryan? I'm sorry, but what the fuck?

Do they now need to risk being doxxed just so a bunch of Reddit users will believe they aren't secretly on Ryan's payroll? I think I've seen this film before! It happened to me just last week! Speaking from personal experience, conspiracy theories have a funny way of constantly demanding one more piece of evidence. And when that proof is provided, somehow it still isn't enough and the goalpost just moves again.

Predictably, my refusal to go along with the conspiracy has now become evidence of the conspiracy itself. I've already been told that making this post is somehow "proving their point", which is especially fucking funny because Blake supporters used the same line to bully me when I defended myself against the pro-Blake CC last week. Apparently if I defend myself against accusations that I work for Justin, that's suspicious, and if I defend myself against accusations that I work for Ryan, that's suspicious too. Is that what you all want? To sound EXACTLY like Blake supporters?

That's why I'm done with this. You are entitled to criticize IEWL but we shouldn't have to entertain any conspiracy theories being formed against the mods just because you got a 3 day ban for breaking rules they've clearly communicated.

You should all know better than this. We have spent more than a year criticizing Blake and her supporters for this exact same shit; starting with a conclusion and working backwards, treating suspicion/disagreement as evidence, moving goalposts when contradictory evidence appears, and deciding that anyone who disagrees must be a paid bot.

THIS LITERALLY HAPPENED TO ME LAST WEEK.

When the Minister of Male Pattern Delusion did this to me, everyone here understood exactly what was wrong with his reasoning. So why should that standard disappear when yall are the ones throwing accusations around?

It is asinine that yall can spend a year demanding evidence from Blake supporters and then suddenly decide that vibes are enough to accuse ordinary people of secretly working for Ryan. Can we pleaaaase NOT be complete fucking hypocrites?

One of the fundamental reasons I support Justin is that I believe Blake accused innocent people of things they did not do and then built a narrative around those accusations. I believe people were smeared because an allegation was repeated loudly and confidently enough that the accusation itself became proof of guilt in the public imagination. So I refuse to sit here and let anyone do the same exact thing to people we've trusted and have interacted with FOR OVER A YEAR.

This entire mess has made it painfully obvious to me that some of us have confused supporting Justin with simply opposing Blake and blaming her for everything at all costs. I think it's time we acknowledge that being "pro-Justin" and "anti-Blake" are no longer interchangeable and the difference matters.

Being pro-Justin requires evidence while being anti-Blake can survive on paranoia and suspicion alone. A pro-Justin position asks whether a claim is supported by the facts. An anti-Blake position starts with the assumption that Blake is guilty and works backwards from there. It does not need the full context because it already has the conclusion.

And more importantly, being pro-Justin should require us to uphold the values Justin has publicly associated himself with: the principles and perspective that drew many people to support him in the first place.

Being anti-Blake does not require any of that, which is why I think anti-Blake rhetoric can become toxic so quickly. It stops being about the strength of Justin's case and starts becoming about contempt for women. At that point, it's using Blake as an excuse for misogyny.

I think that distinction matters because there are people who use pro-Justin language while behaving in ways I do not believe Justin would ever condone. Trying to get women pushed out of communities, spreading unproven accusations about them, assigning motives to them, calling them brainwashed, treating every disagreement as proof of conspiracy, and framing women as dangerous or unstable because they refuse to fall in line is not "supporting Justin."

Many of us became interested in this case because we watched cherry-picked messages spread faster than context, assumptions get repeated as facts, and speculation harden into "truth" simply because enough people wanted to believe it.

So what exactly was the lesson? Personally, I've learned that context matters and that people should be extremely skeptical when they are only being shown the most emotionally convenient version of a story. Apparently for some, the lesson was just that Blake is bad, women are sus, and anyone who challenges the narrative must be discredited.

If you've been following along in this sub and the other one, you should be more skeptical of out-of-context screenshots and paranoia-based accusations by now. You should be more aware of how easily a person can be turned into a villain when people are only shown pieces that support that conclusion.

But anti-Blake rhetoric creates a weird permission structure where the same tactics we criticized suddenly become acceptable as long as they are being used against someone we've decided to outcast. Suddenly, screenshots do not need context, claims do not need evidence, motives can be assigned, and women can be called crazy, jealous, manipulative, or secretly aligned with Blake. And everyone is supposed to accept that framing because the person spreading it presents themselves as being on the "right" side. That is NOT being pro-Justin.

So here's the bottom line, the TLDR, if you will:

You are allowed to criticize this sub and think the rules are silly. You are allowed to criticize MJ, Blake, and whoever else supports her. You can even disagree with me!

But criticism and conspiracy are not the same thing. We cannot be slinging around false accusations against one another all willy nilly.

If supporting Justin means anything, it should mean refusing to do to innocent people what we believe was done to him. So criticize the rule all you want, but the conspiracy theories need to end here.

PS, Thank you to u/OneNoteWonder43, who made an astute point about this, which I'll leave here for your consideration:

"List of things that apparently weren't important enough to warrant censorahip:

1. Ryan's involvement Joi Harris' death
2. Ryan's arsonist activities
3. Every Eumonia Dyke article
4. Content about how they missed Swift's wedding, likely due to the credible allegation that they attempted to extort her for public support
5. Screenshots of Blake grabbing her scene partner's crotch and bragging about how she improvised this move

List of things that are apparently of utmost importance to censor, to the point of doing long term subtle manipulations and covert ops:

1. One small time content creator's last name

Yeah guys, the math doesn't quite math there for me, sorry. 🙃"

Credit to @assholemedia

Here is an AI summary of the key themes and moments highlighted in the compilation:

Crude and Inappropriate Jokes: The compilation strings together multiple instances from late-night appearances, panels, and interviews where Reynolds makes edgy or crude jokes. This includes him joking about taking pictures of his genitals, remarking that the back of someone's head looks like a penis, and quipping that he would use his wife (Blake Lively) as a "human shield" if they were ever under attack.

Awkward Media Interactions: The video highlights moments where his humor appears to cross a line, including a specific red carpet clip captioned, "Ryan Reynolds bringing up sex to a female reporter when asked about kids."

The Justin Baldoni Feud Connection: Towards the end of the video, it shows a recent clip of Reynolds talking about his movie Deadpool & Wolverine. In the clip, Reynolds talks about how much he enjoyed killing off the character "Nicepool" because, even though the character projected a "wonderful" nice-guy image, he was actually terrible. A text overlay explicitly asks,

"Is Ryan Reynolds referring to Justin Baldoni? " Overall: The video acts as a hit-piece compilation. It uses years of Reynolds' sarcastic, boundary-pushing jokes to build a narrative that he is genuinely arrogant and inappropriate, culminating in the suggestion that he is using his movie press tours to take veiled, malicious shots at Justin Baldoni amidst the ongoing lawsuit and leaked document controversy involving his wife

Article in MS mag written by a Lawyer that either didn't follow the case or was paid by Blake and RR.

https://msmagazine.com/2026/07/22/blake-lively-sexual-harassment-justin-baldoni/

The article focuses on how good it was that Blake spoke out about being SH and how prevalent this type of SH is.

"According to her allegations, Justin Baldoni repeatedly discussed his porn addiction and personal sex life, made comments about her body, and improvised physical intimacy that had not been choreographed. Importantly, her claims were dismissed, not because a judge found them lacking in merit but for procedural reasons tied to her independent contractor status under California law.

The harassment itself was never adjudicated."

IDK, the whole article is written from the POV of how Blake is speaking out for her and all females rights.

It's bogus, but I wanted to post it because this might be Blake and Ryan's PR plan, which means we might start seeing more of these types of articles. (There is no comments section.)