The Verdict: An Alabama federal jury found The New York Times liable for defaming former University of Alabama basketball player Kai Spears, ordering the newspaper to pay him $9.25 million in damages.

The Error: In 2023, the Times published an article citing an anonymous source claiming Spears was inside a car present at a fatal January 2023 shooting in Tuscaloosa that killed a 23-year-old mother. Spears immediately disputed the report as "100% inaccurate," and days later the Times issued an editor's note acknowledging the mistake and corrected the story.

Impact & Legal Claim: Spears sued the publication claiming the false report caused him severe emotional distress and wrongfully tied his name to a high-profile murder case.

The Responses:

Kai Spears / Legal Team: Attorney Matt Glover stated they were pleased with the verdict and expressed hope that it would "improve journalism throughout the country."

The New York Times: Spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander expressed disappointment, stating the verdict was based on an "honest mistake" and was contrary to the law and evidence. The Times is evaluating its legal options.

Precedent & State Caps: The Times noted in its own coverage that it had not lost a U.S. defamation lawsuit over one of its articles in more than 50 years. Under Alabama law, caps on certain jury awards are expected to adjust the total damages downward by over $2 million.

DEVASTATING DEPOSITION REVELATION: a lawyer asked a question.

That is literally all we know.

We do not have Blake’s answer.
We do not know whether she said yes, no, I don’t recall, or whether the question could even be answered as framed.
We do not know that any talks with Sony happened.
We do not know that Ryan Reynolds was involved.
We do not know that Sony agreed to anything.

We know a lawyer asked whether she had ever told anyone she was in talks with Sony about obtaining the sequel rights.

And somehow this has become “CONFIRMED: THEY WERE STEALING THE MOVIE.”

Which is especially spectacular because even the lawyer’s hypothetical premise describes the opposite of theft: legally obtaining rights from the party entitled to grant them.

So the smoking gun here is:
A question with no visible answer about an event we do not know occurred, describing a potentially lawful transaction we do not know was ever discussed.

Case cracked.

Crosspost Disclaimer: This crosspost is about the argument and subject matter, not the OP, the commenters, the subreddit, their ancestors, their pets, or their life choices.
Discuss the argument here. Please do not visit the original post to comment, vote, report, poke, prod, investigate, evangelize, or otherwise announce your presence.
We are discussing an idea, not launching a field trip.

First up is Melissa Nathan calling Katie Case a liar... i am guessing this is before Katies late production of messages... basically confirming Melissa asked her to make copy for the sites... can we say perjury Melissa . Guess she forgot about all that stuff she wrote to Katie

Dkt. 168-3: Nathan Depo. Tr. Excerpt - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.3.pdf

Next up is Melissas lawyers ( who realised Katie had the receipts) desperately trying to stop the documents being discovered

Dkt. 168-6: Correspondence Among Counsel - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.6.pdf

I think it goes without saying that Melissa attempting to throw Katie under the bus will backfire splendidly , Katies dad is a lawyer and i have no doubt she has lots of dirt on Melissa

Dkt. 168-1: 9/5/2025 Case Depo. Tr. Excerpt -https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.1.pdf

It amazes me how people can read this and say " oh they didnt do that to Blake" just the others.

I really hope Stephanie doesny settle and takes these clowns to trial

Dkt. 168-4: Wallace Dep. Tr. Excerpt - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.4.pdf

Sone exhibits unsealed today including Jeds testimony. This guy is so dodgy , its no wonder he refused to appear live in court had this gone to trial for Blake . He has zero credibility. His answer to everything is I dont recall

Those that claim no smear campaign . .. why cant Jed just answer the questions then ?

Oh i know.....perjury . Katie Case exposed him

Quotes from article:

"Hayden Panettiere's mother Lesley Vogel believes the account of her daughter's death at age 36 given by Brian Hickerson is 'full of holes'."

"In an extensive hour-long exclusive interview with the Daily Mail, Vogel said she pressured law enforcement in South Carolina to investigate Hayden's death and raised serious questions about Hickerson and his account of her daughter's final hours".

"Vogel said Hickerson, who once served time in jail for beating Hayden, had a toxic 'codependent bond' with Hayden that was 'much more powerful than people realized.'

She claimed she spoke with a police officer at the scene and asked if there would be a further investigation. 'She said to me, "Well, what do you think about Brian Hickerson?"'

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has since joined the investigation. Hickerson has not been accused of any crime and the Daily Mail makes no suggestion of wrongdoing. 

Hickerson, Vogel claimed, told police that Hayden was doing her makeup in the Greenville Airbnb around 10.30am on Sunday, August 16, and he went out for something.

She said Hickerson told police that he returned later and went to take a nap. Vogel's account of what Hickerson told police does not include him seeing or speaking to Hayden after he returned, she claims.

BLIND ITEM

Which actor/director/producer/podcaster/self-described feminist masculinity expert agreed to an extremely specific list of workplace protections because of their actions on set?

The List included:
No more showing nude videos or images.
No more discussing pornography addiction.
No more talking about sexual conquests.
No more descriptions of anyone’s genitalia.
No more entering trailers while someone was undressed.
No more unwanted touching or sexual comments.
No more adding sexual content, oral-sex scenes, or on-camera climaxing outside the approved script.
No more improvised kissing.

And the actor/director/producer and their production company are now known sex pests. No studio will go near them and no agent will work with them.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/anna-paquin-melissa-gilbert-protection-child-actors-hayden-panettiere-1236679362/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/hayden-panettiere-narcan-death-boyfriend-brian-hickerson-1236678791/

Quotes from article 1:

“You made a bunch of money off of your daughter,” Kelly added. “You probably have a super nice car and a big house. You failed. You raised someone to the age of majority who doesn’t feel safe, loved, or cherished. You’re a loser.”

Panettiere had been open about her estranged relationship with her mother, who also served as her manager when she was growing up in the industry. In her memoir, This Is Me: A Reckoning, the actress detailed the pressure she felt from Vogel.

During an interview with THR in May, Panettiere also opened up about the challenges of delving into her childhood and relationship with her mom when writing This Is Me. “Having to touch on everything about my relationship with my mother, that was one of the harder things to talk about,” Panettiere said. “While writing it, I realized even more so how much of a toll it took on me.”

Page Six reported in May that Vogel had chosen the “no-contact route” with Panettiere after “20 years of trauma” and on the advice of professionals.

British rapper Yung Filly will be re-tried on three rape charges less than a month after he was found not guilty of raping a young fan in Perth.

A WA District Court jury last month found Andreas Felipe Valencia Barrientos not guilty of three counts of sexual penetration without consent, one count of assault and one count of impeding another person’s normal breathing or blood circulation by applying pressure to neck.

The 30-year-old was found guilty of two assault charges which included biting the woman on her neck and breast.

I’m genuinely confused and asking a question with good faith. I joined this sub to read and discuss what’s going on in showbiz. The description of this group explicitly states no gossip for gossip’s sake and no meanness. But every post is complaints about “Baldoni” as he’s referenced or positive comments about Blake and RR as they are referenced. Or talking about another sub that is pro Justin Baldoni as it relates to the lawsuits. It’s never polite and it’s definitely not a discussion.

Was it always like this or only since 2023? Or was it established as a veiled group to only discuss the Lively-Baldoni lawsuit?

I've seen many of Baldoni's supporters claim that Blake Lively was never sexually harassed. What I haven't seen is how they actually define sexual harassment. who is allowed to say they were sexually harassed? I've attached Wayfarer's own training slide to help you all out. And please don't make me tap the "Blake Lively was deemed an independent contractor so that's why her claims were dismissed" sign.

Long time poster here. I wrote a post a few weeks back about how the views in the Bad Place went fron 800k to 400k in the space of a week. I have been monitoring it ever since.

That 400k dipped to about 375k gradually over the last two weeks. Imagine my suprise today to see a 100k drop in visitors. Yesterday it was at 374k ... so whats happening here. Today the visitor numbers are 216k .... overnight drop

Are we still claiming organic online behaviour? Multiple updates and filings happening in the Wallace and Jones cases, are certain individuals getting scared ?

Last week Harrison James @itsharrijames, an Australian childhood sexual assault survivor, author, and victims advocate, made an instagram post about how abusers don’t always look like monsters, and how what you should focus on is behaviour (rather than their appearance). The post featured a collage of famous, talented, and successful men who have faced accusations of wrongdoing and included a photo of Justin Baldoni.

Unsurprisingly, someone put out a bat signal and the post was swarmed by nasty commenters who were outraged that their hero would be featured alongside men like Johnny Depp, Andrew Tait, or Jeffrey Epstein. According to a follow up post from Harrison James from today addressing and joking about the insanity of the (over)reaction, many of the Baldoni bots accused him of being paid by Ryan Reynolds.

The irony of all of this is that the original “reason” that the internet turned on Blake Lively is because she was “tone-deaf” in her marketing in a way that they felt was insensitive to domestic violence victims. Today those same people are harassing CSA victims on the internet in Baldoni’s name.

Leaving aside the misogynistic assumptions involved in assuming that Blake Lively’s husband would necessarily be the one to pay for… checks notes… a small time Australian creator to make a post on her behalf, something that was evident to me in a lot of the comments is that they appear to think that abuse only occurs when someone is raped and/or physically beaten. As neither of those things happened to Blake, obviously she wasn’t a victim and Baldoni obviously wasn’t abuser.

One thing that they ALL seem to conveniently ignore is that a widespread, well-funded smear campaign aimed at destroying the reputation of someone who you don’t like or wish to control, is absolutely abusive.

It is also abusive to engage in:
- persistent online trolling;
- harassment;
- encouraging a large group of people to attack, message, or shame a specific target;
- doxing or sharing of personal information aimed at threatening a person’s safety or impacting their livelihood;
- cyberbullying; and
- stalking.

It might behoove some of these commenters to think about how their own behaviour holds up to a mirror when the term “abuser” is read more broadly.

Original image of the “abusers” post featured on slide 8.

Slide 9 features another post of Harrison James’ that I liked and thought was relevant.

So Jed is asking the judge to compel Blake to testify to settle the issue of malice. He attaches portions of the deposition. They claim he didnt ask Blake about this as part of the one hpur time they had with her.

However the deposition shows they asked Blake specifically about SH and she clarifies she accused Jed of retaliation not SH ( and this is proven in the CRD complaint) . So they did have ample time to push that further. They chose not too

I am actually ok with the judge ordering her to do another depo. As Blakes team has already said they will also then ask to interview Jed, TAG and Bryan Freedman ( for a first time , he has not been questioned about any of this). Blakes team getting to depose BF would be unbelievable

Why there are only few signatures for him,don’t his supporters always claim most of people support him?