MISCONCEPTION MEGATHREAD

There is an insane amount of misinformation being spread about this case. We will address these misconceptions within this megathread. Any comments or posts repeating these misconceptions as fact, following their addition to this thread, will be removed.

Lively called the birthing video “pornographic”. This is not true. Both Lively’s CCRD complaint and federal lawsuit claim that Lively initially *thought* Heath was showing her porn, BEFORE Heath explained that it was a birthing video. The video is described as a “nude” video, which is accurate – not a pornographic one (see how this is actually addressed in Lively's CCRD complaint here)

There is no reliable evidence showing that Baldoni placed any stories about Blake Lively. This is not true. Baldoni's own lawsuit includes screenshots of Baldoni and his team discussing placing stories that make Lively look bad, and "boosting" stories that made Baldoni look good (see these screenshots from Baldoni's NYT lawsuit here).

Lively claimed that no intimacy coordinator had been hired. This is also untrue. Lively claimed that there were scenes being shot and improvised without an intimacy coordinator present. She never claimed that an intimacy coordinator hadn’t been hired (see an example of where the intimacy coordinator was addressed in Lively's CCRD complaint, here. If you still aren't certain, search the term "intimacy coordinator" in Lively's complaint and/or lawsuit-- the PDF versions are included in our pinned post.)

Lively edited/altered texts in her CCRD complaint and/or lawsuit. There is no evidence to support this claim. Lively’s legal team used a text extraction software known as Cellebrite. This software includes timestamps, to/from information, and priority of texts. This software is designed for use in court, and can sometimes leave out emojis – however, it is incredibly difficult to manipulate or edit texts extracted with Cellebrite. 

The screenshots in Baldoni’s lawsuit are more reliable than the texts in Lively’s complaint. Again, this isn’t accurate. Baldoni’s legal team will likely need to use a similar text extraction software as screenshots are typically not admissible in court. Additionally, the screenshots in Justin’s lawsuit may also include inconsistencies — for example, a few texts included in Baldoni’s lawsuit appear to have been either edited out of the screenshots, or deleted from the device entirely (see the missing highlighted texts in screenshots from Justin's own lawsuit against NYT, here).

Lively promoted the film in an insensitive way. Sure, this may be true – but Lively was bound to a marketing agreement that determined how she was to promote the film. She followed her contractual obligation, whereas Baldoni diverted from this marketing plan to focus the film promotion on domestic violence. If you have an issue with the film promotion, don’t blame Lively, blame those who wrote the marketing plan. See posts with evidence here and here.

Lively's lawsuit claims that influencers were working directly with Baldoni, or being paid by Baldoni, to smear her. This is not accurate. Lively's lawsuit claims that Baldoni's team was promoting/boosting certain videos, and engaging in the comment sections of certain videos, to fuel a narrative in favor of Baldoni. Lively never claimed that the influencers had any knowledge of this happening -- in reality, its highly likely that they had no idea their videos were being boosted to manipulate the public (see where this is addressed in Lively's CCRD complaint, here, and in case you missed it, Baldoni's team basically admits to this in Baldoni's own lawsuit against NYT, here.)

Lively filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department (CCRD) because she intended to settle, or wanted to "avoid discovery", or intended to avoid a lawsuit altogether. This is false. In California, for employment claims specifically, you must file a complaint with the CCRD before taking further legal action. After receiving the complaint, the CCRD may issue a "right-to-sue notice", which permits the filing of a federal lawsuit. If these requirements had not been met, Lively's federal lawsuit would have been dismissed. This is clear from Lively's federal lawsuit, where her team describes the CCRD complaint as a "jurisdictional prerequisite" (see here), and from the CCRD website, which has more information about this process.