The 47.1 civil statute #BlakeLively throwing a Hail Mary #justinbaldoni #itendswithus

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-16

[00:00:00]I love the law. I love studying it.

[00:00:03]And when I'm going over this Blake Lively BS, okay?

[00:00:08]Obviously, statutes, civil codes are different state to state. They vary.

[00:00:12]So, I'm reading up on this 300 million she wants.

[00:00:16]And I'm reading up on the statute in the civil code that was just actually passed down in California on January 1st, 2024. The rule 47.1 under the California Civil Code. And it protects victims of harassment or discrimination from weaponized retaliatory defamation lawsuits. It shields individuals who have a reasonable basis to report sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination even if no formal complaint was filed.

[00:00:45]Um it also gives protections that apply with good faith, without malice, and privileged communication can include reports to employers, HR, law enforcement, attorneys, journalists, or their social media.

[00:01:00]And it also can cover damages and attorney's fees if they prevail, they can recover attorney's fees.

[00:01:08]On its face, it seems like well, yeah, that's great because maybe you're somebody who's being sexually harassed or discriminated against in your workplace and you don't want to go through the formal chain of the corporate HR or higher-up or supervisor, right? You don't want to report to that person because if you do, you're afraid that person is going to go tell or going to narc on you, or you just fear the climate of reporting within your own work environment.

[00:01:42]Right? I get that. I do.

[00:01:46]So, you go your own way.

[00:01:48]You want to report sexual harassment that somebody's doing to you on Facebook, on Instagram, or in Blake's case, leak it to the New York Times about what you're alleging is happening to you on set.

[00:02:01]So, you choose under the protection of this 47.1 statute to let's say do a long Tik Tok or Instagram story about the person that you're alleging is doing all these awful things to you at work.

[00:02:20]And under this statute if you report this and you claim that you're reporting this without malice this 47.1 statute protects you from the person you're accusing in whatever format you choose to accuse them of these things from filing suit against you for libel or defamation of character.

[00:02:58]And here's the problem with the 47.1, specifically with the Blake case. I'm not saying every case cuz I see pros and cons.

[00:03:09]But in the Blake case, number one jurisdictional.

[00:03:13]The production was in New York.

[00:03:16]Blake did not sign the employment contract. In fact, she actually bragged how she basically ran the movie set in order to get a writer's credit for SAG.

[00:03:26]So, unsure how she's an employee without a legitimate contract.

[00:03:33]And in New York.

[00:03:37]So, Judge Lyman would have to in consideration of the 47.1 be the first judge in New York to kind of cross-pollinate this statute.

[00:03:48]And I guess be the first person to have a cutout for this, specifically for Blake in this case, which I doubt he's going to.

[00:03:57]But, okay.

[00:04:00]The other thing is that this has the potential for really rich, spoiled actresses like Blake Lively to fabricate an abuse, right? Because you can avoid a defamation suit simply by claiming that without malice, you reasonably believed you were sexually You reasonably believed you were sexually harassed.

[00:04:23]You believe your own [ __ ] You can just claim, "Yeah, I just reasonably believe these statements were true and I made them without malice." And it incentivizes malicious accusations that can obviously ruin reputations.

[00:04:40]Because once you claim that under the statute, without formally filing a single HR complaint or going through any of the normal protocols of complaining, you're protected from defamation lawsuits, libel lawsuits.

[00:04:58]You can ruin somebody's reputation and be protected under the statute while you're bullshitting your way and making false accusations. And then a judge has to be the person, I guess, to interpret what malice even means in this case, because it only protects communications made without malice, but how are we even defining malice? That's completely subjective. How can we define in this entire case what did she mean maliciously or believably, not maliciously?

[00:05:27]What was well-intentioned in all of the goddamn [ __ ] we read through this?

[00:05:32]How It's pretty broad scope for a New York judge to be determining the intent of Blake on a civil statute that just got issued in 2024 under California Civil Code. I'm not too sure about how he's going to feel about that.

[00:05:48]I don't think good.

[00:05:50]Unless it's crooked, but I honestly don't see that being decided at all in any way, to be honest with you, especially if you don't even sign the employment contract.

[00:06:00]Jurisdictional issues alone.

[00:06:05]Even if it were to go that far, like how is Judge Lyman going to decide if it's malice or not in all of the emails and her intentions.

[00:06:15]I just don't see that happening. So, even if the claims were to survive, like the ones that were left, which I guess included the 47.1 in trial, I think it was if it were to go to trial, it was supposed to be like this this tested, basically, like to determine if her statements were truly privileged under that 47.1. Were they truly made?

[00:06:39]Were they believable? Were they not malicious? And that was going to be tested at trial, but now we don't have a trial, so she's now asking the judge to decide.

[00:06:49]I don't think he's going to do that, but again, this is a Hail Mary. This is a you know, 2 seconds on the clock, throwing it, lobbing it, hoping somebody catches it and nobody blocks you and you get a touchdown. I just don't think it's going to happen, but that's my opinion. And so, what I think she's really doing is almost it's like asking for summary judgment, right? Like he dismissed the 10 claims. There's three that survived.

[00:07:17]One that involves the 47.1, okay?

[00:07:21]She's trying to short circuit a trial and almost give you like a false settlement, okay?

[00:07:30]First of all, I think this was totally because she wanted to go to the Met Gala without the level of drama surrounding the trial. So, I think they issued that banal joint statement to kind of like, "Okay, everything's fine. Here I am.

[00:07:43]Woohoo! Oh, look at my purse. I'm so shy. [ __ ] off."

[00:07:49]That's why I think that happened. And then like joint nice statement. And then the next day it was like the Blake Lively Ryan Reynolds press machine.

[00:07:56]Blake's the winner and here's these motions judge you have to decide that because we settled that means Justin admitted he was wrong. I mean the Wayfair parties and Tag and whatever admitted that they were wrong. You should find me victorious and pay me this amount and my legal fees and all this [ __ ] under this 47.1 statute. Okay, these are all [clears throat] things that were going to be decided at trial if they survived.

[00:08:25]If they survived. Okay? Three left.

[00:08:29]Now she's trying to short circuit that and basically ask the judge for a summary judgment and call it a settlement.

[00:08:42]I don't think he's going to do this.

[00:08:44]He's not going to do this.

[00:08:46]You should have went to trial if you wanted these decisions. These were decisions he did not want to make.

[00:08:52]That's why you had two settlement conferences.

[00:08:54]That's why you decided to go to trial.

[00:08:57]You looked at everything and said, "Okay, and these are the three that survived out of the 13 crappy ass [ __ ] claims you made. And by the way, the ones that were dismissed involved the sexual harassment that didn't happen."

[00:09:08]Okay?

[00:09:10]It's egregious that this gets to continue and she gets to like wave the statute as something.

[00:09:20]I I I just I find it abhorrent. And I can see people with money and now I can see how people with money right? Like Blake and Ryan can abuse a well-intentioned statute to their advantage.

[00:09:39]I get it, but like somebody with that amount of money can use something like that to their advantage to basically take over an entire film set.

[00:09:51]And there's nothing nothing anyone can do about it under that.

[00:09:56]Thank god they filmed in New York.

[00:10:00]I mean I I just don't think he's going to be looking at this fondly what her lawyers are doing right now.