r/CelebLegalDrama

The Defendants substack and upcoming podcast is a series questioning why sexual assault cases continue to face such steep uphill battles in the justice system, and interrogating what justice means in the aftermath of trauma.

https://linktr.ee/thedefendantspodcast

In this issue they focus on Lively v Wayfarer and why this case is so important and already setting a harmful precedent

Excerpts below

> “I just don’t really care about Blake Lively.”

> “It’s miserable rich people suing miserable rich people. ” ,

> “Yeah she’s always bothered me.”

> I don’t think it’s possible to have been operating in online spaces without knowing about Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni.

> In early 2025, when the press coverage of their respective lawsuits was at its peak, most formed a vague opinion about the pair, then checked out of this controversy.

> I’m here to tell you that if you’ve checked out, it’s time to check back in. Fast. If you are someone who cares about women, women’s rights, and being able to move through the world with safety, you NEED to care about Blake Lively. You don’t need to care about her movies, her fashion, her Canadian marvel-cinematic-universe husband, or her friendship with Taylor Swift. But you need to care about this lawsuit and what’s happening to her.

> I’m sorry to be the one to tell you, but Blake Lively matters to all of us.

> So Why Were Her Claims Dismissed?

> A lot of it boils down to legal technicalities.

> Blake Lively brought her sexual harassment charges forward in California. The film was primarily shot in New Jersey. That is a different state with different laws.

> The biggest issue and the one that we should all be the most concerned about is that Blake Lively was, as are many people in the entertainment industry, but also in freelance jobs across the career spectrum, an independent contractor.

> Independent contractors are not afforded the same protections and rights that employees are.

> In his 152 page ruling, the judge found that it would have been reasonable for Blake Lively to assume that the behaviour she was being subjected to constituted sexual harassment. But there was nothing to be done about this. Because she was not their employee.

> This exposes a dangerous and obvious hole in our system. Right now, this ruling, and this case is essentially saying that if you employ independent contractors you can behave however you want towards them. There is no way to hold you accountable. They don’t have the right to do it.

> Quick lesson about how the legal system works in the US/Canada: It operates off something called case precedent. This means that once something is decided, that becomes something that other judges and lawyers look to, to build their arguments for upcoming cases and so on and so forth. If something is missing in the law (for example, protections for independent contractors), the way to fix it is either to get lawmakers to make new laws that protect for what you’re missing, and in absence of that, look to case precedent to decide.

> The precedent being set in this case is that independent contractors do not get protection from sexual harassment and hostile workplaces.

> This is another precedent of this case: Internet hate campaigns work. You can whip people up into a fever-pitch-frenzy about a woman, and the public will grab for tomatoes to throw without even realizing they’re being influenced.

> It happened with Amber Heard and Johnny Depp, and now we know it can happen when the man is arguably much less famous and powerful. Turns out, all it takes is a woman saying: he did something to me for the people to lose their goddamn minds.

> The way we speak about women matters. If we can be this hateful and vindictive to Blake Lively, that hate will trickle down insidiously into how we treat all the women in our lives. It’s hate that will show up in our disdain for all things teenage girls like, and irritation with moms out in public. Hate that feels invisible, until you realize you can’t explain why you don’t like that coworker or boss, and find yourself having to question whether it’s just because she’s existing, in a female body, in a way that subtly repulses you. Hate that shows up in the very real violence that happens every day in homes across the continent.

> For about a year and a half, we had MeToo. Women thought it might be safe and acceptable to come forward and speak out, and that they might do so without retaliation.

> Blake Lively’s lawsuit is showing everyone that, if you so much as try to speak up in the workplace, you can be hung in the town square, no matter how much proof you have.

> Justin Baldoni is also proving the power of retaliatory lawsuits. He was allowed to counter sue Blake Lively and her husband and drag that on for months before it was tossed out, when he had absolutely no basis for suing. His law firm was sanctioned for it (though from what I understand this amounts to a stern warning).

> Retaliatory lawsuits and weaponizing the legal system happens to victims of sexual misconduct all the time. This is where an abuser will sue their victim for speaking out against them in an attempt to keep them quiet. It drowns victims in legal fees, and often makes them just shut up, and concede in order to make the lawsuit go away.

> This was a clear cut example of a retaliatory lawsuit that worked to further destroy Blake Lively’s character. Here, is where the fact that she was Blake Lively mattered. She was rich enough that she didn’t have to back down, and the lawsuit didn’t destroy her financially. She was able to wait for it to get tossed.

> For most people, these lawsuits are extraordinarily effective at ending their ability to speak up. Because, while The Epstein Files, and Justin Baldoni himself, prove that billionaires are willing to bankroll the legal battles of men accused of sexual misconduct, they aren’t exactly lining up to bankroll the legal action of the women accusing them (although they would be my hero if they did).