Blake Lively's impulse to dismiss Justin Baldoni's defamation accountant is the support of several defense groups, who say that the case threatens legal protection won strongly for people who talk about sexual harassment and miscarriage.
The defenders of equal rights, a non -profit organization based in San Francisco that advocates for gender equity and protections in the workplace, presented an Amicus letter on Tuesday urging a federal judge to defend the motion of Lively and defend the new Law of Freedom of Expression of California that protects those who speak publicly about inductive sexual behavior. Elyse Dorsey, a former federal employee and survivor of sexual harassment, also presented a separate letter of interest, which described to be sued by defamation after speaking and said that the law in question could have saved a terrible legal experience of a year. Additional summaries are expected in the next days of defense groups, including US children and the sanctuary for families.
The summaries mark the last save in a legal shock of months between Lively and Baldoni, whose bitter dispute derived from the production of last year's romantic drama “It ends with us” has been developed in court and the press.
When asked about the summaries, a spokesman for Lively said in a statement that Baldoni was “trying to put an end to the only law of 'metal' of the nation as 'unconstitutional'” and accused him already his coacked of being “so concentrated in trying to harm Mrs. Livel in the name of herself and others.”
Lively has accused Baldoni, his co -star and director of the film, to harass her during filming, cite physical contact in the improvised set, inappropriate behavior and supposed reprisal after she raised concerns, says she has denied. The defenders say that their case highlights the type of public accusations that the law was destined to protect, and warns that a ruling against it could relax the discourse around harassment.
“If the law was attacked, not only would it affect Blake Lively, essentially would eliminate protections for all survivors,” said Jessica Schidlow, Legal Director of Child USA, a non -profit organization that advocates the strongest protections for abuse survivors. “It would be a devastating setback and fully undermine the purpose of the law, which was to facilitate that the victims present themselves and tell their truth without fear of reprisals.”
Lively invoked Law-Section 47.1 of the Civil Code of California, promulgated in 2023 as part of bill 933 of the Assembly-on a motion presented in March to dismiss the counter of $ 400 million of Baldoni, which alleges that he falsely accused him of harassment and reprisals and tried to snatch the control of his film.
Baldoni's legal team has firmly opposed the motion of dismissal, arguing that Lively's accusations were fake false and that the statute he invoked is unconstitutional. They argue that the law goes too far by threatening financial sanctions, saying that people could discourage themselves to court to defend against false accusations.
“In no case, in this motion or at any stage of this procedure, the first amendment will allow the extreme and unconstitutional adjudication of rates, costs and acute and damages punitive animated damage,” says the presentation.
That position attracted a strong response from Victoria Burke, a lawyer who helped to press for AB 933 and now leads efforts to approve similar legislation in another 16 states.
“He was very disappointed with that movement,” said Burke, who is presenting his own Amicus report in the case. “He has put himself there as a feminist, and this undoes the good he had been doing. He simply seemed cruel and unnecessary, trying to destroy a law that was designed to protect all survivors, just to go to one.”
AB 933 was designed to protect people who talk about sexual harassment, assault or discrimination of retaliation defamation costumes, provided that their statements were not made with “real malice.” It also includes a provision that changes rates that require the failed plaintiffs paying legal costs and allows punitive damage and damages.
In a presentation of March 4 in a Federal Court in New York, Lively's lawyers argued that Baldoni's contrademanda is precisely the type of reprisal that the new California law should prevent.
“The law prohibits the demands for defamation of weapons, such as this, to retaliate against people who have presented legal claims or publicly spoken about sexual harassment and reprisals,” says the brief.
The case marks the first important test of AB 933, since it was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in October 2023. The result could establish an early precedent on how far the courts are willing to defend the law, and what protections finally provides those who speak of alleged misconduct.
“As more survivors were presented, the people who damaged them were increasing What happens, what happens, what occur when the cases of fame or that occur, what happens, what happens when the cases of fame occur or that occur.
The Lively team, in a summary of May 13, defended the constitutionality of the law and reiterated that its public statements were protected by AB 933.
“The first amendment empowers the legislatures to protect the rights of the first amendment from the victims through rates change rules designed to deter repaisallion litigation,” their lawyers wrote.
The court has not yet ruled on Lively's motion to dismiss. If it is granted, it could give a significant blow to the Baldoni counter, and shape the way in which AB 933 is interpreted in future cases that involve public accusations of misconduct.
As other states seek to adopt similar legislation, defenders say that the result of the case could have domain effects far beyond California.
“We want to be able to make sure that there is a social and legal environment in which you can tell your truth and inform sexual aggression and harassment without fear of being demanded,” said Dorchen Leidhold, senior director of legal services in Sanctuary for Families, a non -profit organization based in New York that provides legal services and supporting the survivors of gender violence. “Legal retaliation actions such as the one presented by Mr. Baldoni and his team are doing huge damage to the victims, not only in California but throughout the country, which affect not only celebrities victims, but common people.”
