r/WithBlakeLively

Blake took a chance on Wayfarer. Blake took a chance on Baldoni. A group of people with very few low grade credits to their name in Entertainment. Who couldn’t believe they had scored an A List name to work with. And what transpired was not only HR nuts, but an incessant, name-drop hate campaign spanning years that continues as we speak. Naturally, hate-content creators at home followed suit. Excited for the engagement women-hating content brings. The irony of hating a “bully” whilst turning the phone camera on themselves multiple times a day to continuously tear down a woman they’ve never met. Even when the docket was quiet. Even though Blake never did the same. How long will the irony continue? And at what point will the bullies realise it’s been Blake’s name they have ridden for significance? It’s Blake’s name that keeps them afloat. Without Blake, none of them, Wayfarer included, have relevancy at all.

not my tweet, found on x @ blwifey

In light of the recent stipulation filed by Wayfarer, are we supposed to forget that for the best part of 18 months they were claiming Blake’s complaints were fabricated in order to steal the movie?

That she was subjected to the most vile bullying and harassment, not just by Wayfarer but there counsel, content creators, media and the public. They went as far to claim she was abusing the Me-Too movement, and doing a disservice to “actual victims,“ and All for what?

I understand why Wayfarer agreed to this, and the benefits, but this stipulation also won’t automatically mean no witnesses or evidence of the hostile work environment won’t be shown to the jury. It’s great for Blake that it’s one less element she has to prove, but I would be lying if I said this decision hasn’t left a sour taste in my mouth, and it certainly doesn’t eradicate all the harm wayfarer and co have caused.

Anyway, just my thoughts. Have a lovely weekend ❤️

I posted about a week ago with some screenshots from my email conversation with Kjersti Flaa (Flaawsometalk on YouTube) and wanted to share some more of the conversation for those interested.

The talk contains sensitive information about the Blake Lively case, the corruption in Hollywood, SA and SH, and how those who speak out are treated. Some of the material in these threads is NSFW, so I will include a trigger warning for sensitive folks.

A certain Norwegian grifter is seething rn

He seems to be a very intelligent and smart man 🤓. /s

I've always felt that these kind of 'both sides bad' narratives are even more harmful than outright supporting the accused. Because this is more deceptive and has subtle effects on developing people's mindsets around sexual harrasment and workplace protection. Shame on him and THR.

While you know who sexually harassed Britney by his own admission.

P.s. The reason I don’t mention his name is that I think we should separate Blake’s name from his. His name should be associated with his behavior only and not the women he victimized.

Does this look like a husband that is “ashamed, embarrassed or on the brink of divorcing“ his wife?

“when we respond to a male’s bad behaviour, that response is treated like the offence itself”

”Makes me feel like I am the offender for having any kind of defence”

”If I respond I am crazy”

” If I respond I am angry”

Happy Mother’s Day to you all ❤️

To the ones who held our hands,
Before we knew the way,
Who chased away our fears,
And brightened every day.
You are the gentle, guiding light,
The strong, enduring heart,
A comforting presence, day and night,
Our beautiful, loving start.
From sleepless nights to joyful smiles,
You give with all your might,
A mother’s love, across the miles,
Makes the world feel right.
Thank you for the sacrifices,
For the strength you always show,
For the patience and the wisdom,
That helped us thrive and grow.
Today we honor all you do,
The nurturing and the grace,
Happy Mother’s Day to you,
You cannot be replaced.

Okay this one isn’t flashy, but it’s actually kind of huge once you read it.

So the court just ruled on what parts of the case can stay sealed (aka hidden) vs. what has to be made public. And Jed Wallace + Katherine Case specifically tried to keep certain information under wraps mainly the names tied to PR activity / prospective clients.

The judge said no, and the reasoning is what makes this interesting. First, the court points out that some of the material they’re trying to hide actually shows they were never even formally engaged by certain individuals. Which… already raises questions about why those names needed to be sealed in the first place.

Second, the judge notes that some of this information is already public or has already been reported, which means the privacy argument doesn’t really hold up.

So the result is:

• The motions to seal those names were denied
• The documents have to be re-filed publicly
• Only basic personal info (like emails/phone numbers) can stay redacted

That’s where this becomes more than just a procedural thing, because if this case really was just “normal PR” and nothing unusual was happening… why the push to keep those connections hidden?

Now those materials are going to be re-filed with minimal redactions, which means we could start seeing:

• more names
• more connections
• more insight into who was involved and how

At the same time, the court is making it pretty clear that this kind of PR-related activity isn’t something that automatically stays behind closed doors, especially when it’s tied to the core claims in the case.

So yeah… although this isn’t a dramatic ruling on its own, it definitely feels like a setup for more information coming out.

Given everything else that’s already been alleged about narrative shaping and coordinated messaging… the timing of that transparency push is interesting!

We're so proud of you, Blake. Keep fighting the good fight.