- Blake Lively, sued for harassment by a content creator in legal battle with Justin Baldoni
- Justin Baldoni was unhappy with how Blake Lively was being criticized prior to lawsuits
Ryan Reynolds is seeking to dismiss a $400 million defamation lawsuit filed by fellow actor and filmmaker Justin Baldoni, arguing that his statements about Baldoni are protected under the First Amendment. The legal battle stems from allegations that Reynolds referred to Baldoni as a "predator" during a private conversation with Baldoni's talent agency, WME, at the "Deadpool and Wolverine" premiere in July 2024.
According to court documents, Reynolds' legal team contends that his remarks were expressions of opinion rather than factual claims, which are constitutionally protected. His attorneys argue that Reynolds genuinely believes Baldoni engaged in inappropriate behavior, citing allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation made by Reynolds' wife, Blake Lively, against Baldoni.
The lawsuit also claims that Reynolds pressured WME to sever ties with Baldoni, labeling him a "sexual predator." Reynolds' legal team has dismissed Baldoni's claims as baseless, emphasizing that expressing disdain for someone's character does not constitute defamation unless proven to be knowingly false.
The motion that everyone is talking about
Baldoni has countersued Lively and Reynolds, alleging defamation, civil extortion, and other claims. Reynolds' attorneys have characterized Baldoni's lawsuit as an attempt to stifle free speech and have called for its dismissal. There is a bold statement in the motion.
"The allegations suggest that Mr. Reynolds genuinely, perhaps ionately, believes that Mr. Baldoni's behavior is reflective of a 'predator,'" the motion states. The lawsuit is part of a broader legal dispute involving Lively and Baldoni, with both sides accusing each other of orchestrating smear campaigns.
As the case unfolds, it highlights the complexities of defamation law and the balance between protecting reputations and upholding free speech rights. The outcome could have significant implications for public figures navigating similar disputes in the future.