Judge Lewis Liman says : It is ok to lie if you are on Blake Lively’s team (allegedly)

A judge dismissed Justin Baldoni's $400M defamation suit against Blake Lively over «It Ends With Us». Lively can proceed without legal issues. The article examines allegations, the legal fight, Blake Lively's lies (allegedly) and implications for public figures, showing the balance between grievances and public opinion, plus consequences for celebrities in public discourse.

Overview of the Case

A New York judge has recently dismissed Justin Baldoni’s $400 million defamation lawsuit against bully Blake Lively (watch Blake Lively and Parker Posey bully Kjersti Flaa), BBC reports. The lawsuit had garnered significant media attention, particularly because it followed their collaboration in the 2024 film «It Ends With Us». This ruling from Judge Lewis Liman allows Blake Lively to move forward without the shadow of this lawsuit looming over her – since it’s ok for her team to make up stuff and lies, Judge Lewis Liman  just confirmed in our opinion!

The Allegations and Legal Battle

Justin Baldoni, who starred alongside the bad actress Blake Lively in the aforementioned film, accused her of making false statements that allegedly ruined his reputation and career (Blake Lively has not produced one inch of evidence against Justin in our opinion). The legal battle had been contentious, involving accusations of extortion and other serious claims. The trial was scheduled for next year, but with the judge’s ruling, the future now looks brighter for Lively.

Implications of the Ruling

This dismissal raises important questions regarding accountability and the limits of personal grievances in the public sphere. Judge Liman’s statement indicates that, under certain circumstances, it may be permissible for public figures to voice their opinions without facing heavy legal consequences. While Lively may have some relief now, it is important to note that this case is a reminder of the risks involved in public interactions among celebrities. The ruling could potentially encourage others to exercise caution in their expressions to avoid future legal entanglements.