Latest news with #TEDTalks
New York Post
13-06-2025
- New York Post
8 Best AI Detectors in 2025 (tested for accuracy)
New York Post may receive revenue from affiliate and advertising partnerships for sharing this content and/or when you make a purchase. We're all living in a digital fever dream. Between ChatGPT ghostwriting half the internet and freshman students submitting essays that sound suspiciously like TED Talks, it's getting harder to know what's real and what's…generated. And while I would love to believe my ex's emotionally intelligent apology text was sincere, I ran it through an AI detector and — shocker — it wasn't. But seriously, AI content is everywhere, and most of it is good enough to pass as human if you're skimping on your caffeine. Advertisement So, whether you're a teacher trying to sniff out a term paper that feels a little too fluent or a marketer vetting freelancers who write like a robot with a concussion, now you need tools that can actually tell the difference, and quickly. We tested the best AI detectors of 2025 — some really impressive, some totally useless — and here's what made the cut. Product Spotlight Best overall: AI Detector AI Detector Pros: Extremely fast Accurately detects multiple LLMs (not just GPT) Includes a rewriting tool to 'humanize' flagged content Cons: Limited to English AI Detector is the cool, competent sibling in a family of try-hards. You don't have to sign up, you don't have to download anything, and you don't have to pretend you know what 'perplexity' means. You paste the text, hit 'Detect AI,' and within seconds you get a detailed breakdown of how machine-y your copy is, complete with a percentage score and sentence-by-sentence analysis. It's fast, intuitive, and genuinely useful whether you're a content strategist, professor, or just suspicious of your friend's suspiciously articulate dating profile. We generated a wedding toast, adding requests for more humanization and details along the way, via ChatGPT. New York Post We plugged in the final wedding toast result by ChatGPT into AI Detector, and these were the (frightening) results. New York Post What makes AI Detector stand out is its range. It doesn't just scan for GPT-3 or 4 — it also flags content written by Claude, Gemini, and other models that most detectors pretend don't exist. There's even a humanizer tool that lets you rewrite flagged content to sound more human — perfect if you're working with AI but don't want to get caught in the act. That's right, it'll help you cheat the test it just gave you. You didn't hear it from us. We rewrote the AI-generated wedding toast ourselves and ran that through AI Detector, which yielded a much more positive result. New York Post Compared to every other tool we tried, it's the most consistent, fastest, and surprisingly nuanced when it comes to mixed-origin text (part AI, part human). It's basically the narc with a heart. AI DETECTOR Best real-time detection: Grammarly Grammarly Pros: Already baked into Grammarly, no extra tool or tab Flags AI while you're fixing your commas and passive voice Familiar, super easy to use Free version available Cons: Doesn't go deep — just gives a general AI score Grammarly's like that friend who's always correcting your grammar in group texts — annoying, sure, but usually right. And now, it's also raising an eyebrow at your writing like, 'Hmm… did you actually write this?' The AI detection tool is built right into the Grammarly app, so if you're already using it to fix your dangling modifiers and overly intense adjectives, you'll see a little alert pop up when your text starts to sound suspiciously synthetic. It won't give you a forensic breakdown or point to specific sentences like the other tools on this list, and it doesn't know if it was written by GPT or Claude or your friend's ChatGPT plugin named 'Cheryl.' But for basic detection without interrupting your flow, it's honestly kind of perfect. It's not the one you'd bring to court, but it's the one quietly judging your Google Docs in the background — and usually, that's enough. Best for academic use: Pros: Very high detection rates for GPT-3/4 Doubles as a plagiarism checker Supports batch uploads and institutional accounts Cons: Paid-only, no free tier Can be a bit overzealous with paraphrased human work is like that uptight but brilliant TA who actually cares about the integrity of your midterm essay. Built with academics and publishers in mind, it's one of the few tools on the market that doesn't just detect AI — it also checks for plagiarism in one seamless scan. It's a paid tool, yes, but if you're in a high-stakes environment where false positives are better than missing a cheater, it's worth the subscription. In our tests, it consistently flagged GPT-3 and GPT-4 content with an impressive 94% accuracy rate. What's more, it offers team management tools, batch uploading, and shareable reports, which makes it ideal for departments or institutions dealing with a large volume of student work. The UI is clean, the results are detailed, and the false positive rate is relatively low, especially for longer-form content. Where it occasionally stumbles is with paraphrased or hybrid content. Sometimes it reads an obviously human-written piece as 'suspect' because of certain sentence patterns or topic density. But in an academic context, caution usually wins out over leniency. If you're in higher ed and tired of guessing whether that 2,000-word essay on metaphysics was really written by a freshman, this is your guy. Best free: GPTZero GPTZero Pros: Totally free and browser-based No registration or email needed Clear sentence-level analysis and visual breakdowns Cons: Less accurate with newer LLMs (Claude, Gemini) No advanced features like file uploads or team reports Risks misidentification of ESL-written pieces as AI GPTZero doesn't charge a dime, doesn't require a login, and still manages to deliver sentence-by-sentence detection with visual cues that feel like a teacher's red pen, if the pen had an algorithm. It was literally created by a Princeton student for educators, and while it's evolved since its viral launch, it's still free and shockingly good for a no-cost tool. In our testing, it handled straight-up AI content well, especially from GPT-3 and early GPT-4 models. The results dashboard is clean, color-coded, and actually useful for non-techy users. You paste the text, it flags suspicious sections based on 'perplexity' and 'burstiness' (linguistic markers of robotic writing), and you get an instant sense of whether that student paper was written by a real person or a caffeinated chatbot. That said, GPTZero's biggest advantage — its accessibility — comes with trade-offs. It doesn't perform as strongly on newer models like Claude or on heavily edited AI text. And while the UX is great, there's no downloadable report or plagiarism check. But honestly, for a tool that costs less than a stale bagel, it punches way above its weight. Best for quick checks: AI Content Detector Pros: Free and lightning fast No sign-up required Great for casual, everyday checks Cons: Lacks deep analytics Doesn't distinguish between LLM models May miss subtle AI insertions If you're just trying to spot-check a paragraph before it goes live or double-check a freelancer's tone, AI Content Detector is perfect. It's stupid simple: paste text, hit 'Analyze,' and boom — instant score telling you whether the content reads as human or synthetic. No login, no tutorial, no existential dread (okay, maybe a little). It's not as detailed or as advanced as other options on this list. There's no sentence-by-sentence breakdown, no support for mixed-language content, and no visibility into what model it's actually detecting. But for speed and simplicity, it wins. It's especially useful in newsroom, agency, or startup settings where speed > nuance. We wouldn't recommend it for high-stakes content checks, like academic submissions or legal writing, but for day-to-day editorial use or social content, it's surprisingly handy. Think of it like a vibe check for your copy. Not deep, but effective. Best for businesses: Copyleaks Copyleaks Pros: Detects AI-generated and plagiarized content simultaneously Supports over 30 languages Offers LMS integrations and robust API access Granular analytics and side-by-side comparison tools Cons: Interface is a bit clunky for first-time users Pricing gets steep at scale Copyleaks is the enterprise workhorse of AI detectors. It's not just scanning for machine-written content — it's checking for plagiarism across academic databases, web sources, and internal libraries. It's used by government agencies, universities, and Fortune 500 companies for a reason. It offers one of the most sophisticated dashboards on the market, complete with similarity indexes, AI probability heatmaps, and team-level reporting. There's a learning curve, but once you're in, it's powerful. If you're managing a large volume of content, like admissions essays, agency output, or branded copy, Copyleaks earns its keep. Best multilingual: Sapling Sapling Pros: Supports content in multiple languages Clean, fast interface Works inside chat tools like Zendesk, Salesforce, and Gmail Great for customer service and business teams Cons: Lacks plagiarism checking Not ideal for academic-length documents Sapling flies under the radar, but it's one of the few detectors that performs well on non-English content. Built as a writing assistant for business teams, it includes a surprisingly capable AI detector baked into its grammar and tone tools. It's designed to be especially useful for customer support managers vetting auto-generated replies or chatbot content in multiple languages. While it's not built for longform content, its real-time integrations and speed make it great for quality control in fast-paced environments. Best for teachers: Winston AI Pros: Designed specifically for educators and writers High accuracy on GPT-3, 3.5, and 4 Supports PDF, DOCX, TXT, and image scans with OCR Includes reading level analysis and humanization suggestions Cons: No free version Winston AI is the honor student in the room — polite, precise, and academically inclined. What sets it apart is how well it performs with scanned documents and handwritten-to-text conversions, thanks to its built-in OCR support. It flags AI-written essays quickly and correctly, while also offering a readability score and humanization suggestions. Teachers and tutors will especially appreciate its classroom-friendly reports and side-by-side visual breakdowns. It's not flashy, but it is incredibly effective where it counts. Tool Best For Free Version Detects Multiple Models Plagiarism Tool Humanizer Tool Batch Uploads AI Detector Most use cases Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Grammarly Built-in/live detection Yes No No No No Academic and publishing No Yes Yes No Yes GPTZero A robust free tool Yes Partial No No No Quick one-off checks Yes No No No No Copyleaks Businesses Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sapling Detecting multiple languages Yes Yes No No Yes Winston AI Teachers and SEO writers No Yes Yes Yes Yes The verdict AI content is no longer a novelty — it's the norm. And whether you're building syllabi, editing blog posts, reviewing resumes, or just trying to decode the suspiciously perfect text your friend's boyfriend sent at 2 a.m., you need an AI detector that's fast, accurate, and future-proof. After testing the top tools of 2025, AI Detector stood out as the most consistent and best overall performer. It's fast — lightning fast. It's smart — able to sniff out not just ChatGPT, but also newer models like Claude and Gemini, which many competitors still ignore. It's intuitive — no steep learning curve, just paste your text and get your results. And maybe most importantly in the current arms race of human vs. bot, it offers a rewriting tool that helps you 'humanize' flagged content without the awkwardness of rewriting from scratch. How we tested Our goal was to simulate the kind of messy, inconsistent, very-human behavior that AI detectors should be able to flag — and also the kind they routinely get wrong. First, we gathered a batch of fresh AI-generated text from ChatGPT-4, Claude, and Gemini. We asked each model to write essays, cover letters, Reddit-style rants, even birthday toasts (which, fun fact, GPT is weirdly good at). Then we got human with it — rewrote chunks, added slang, threw in spelling errors, and used tools like Quillbot to paraphrase whole paragraphs beyond recognition. We also used real human writing: old college papers, Substack entries, poetry, and blog posts that were 100% organic and occasionally unhinged. Each detector was tested across: Pure AI text Pure human text Paraphrased and hybrid text Short (100–200 word) samples and long-form (800+ word) entries We scored them on accuracy, false positives, false negatives, ease of use, speed, and transparency — aka, whether the tool told us why something was flagged instead of just wagging its digital finger. Bottom line: if a detector let a robot essay skate by or flagged a real person just for using a semicolon, we took notes. The tools that survived? They earned their spot. FAQs on AI detectors How accurate are AI detectors? They're good, but not omniscient. Most top detectors hover around 90–95% accuracy for GPT-3 and 4, according to Cornell University. But paraphrased or hybrid content throws a wrench in the works, especially if it's been human-edited. Can detectors tell which AI wrote something? Some can. AI Detector does a decent job of differentiating between ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. But many tools just say 'This looks AI-ish' without naming names. Think of it like a scent trail, not a fingerprint. Will AI detectors stay reliable as models get better? Only if they evolve alongside them. As LLMs get smarter, detectors need regular training on the outputs. Tools that aren't actively updated (hi, random Chrome extensions) are basically paperweights. Do they work on non-English content? Mostly, no, and this is worth noting. Nearly all detectors are trained on English-language data. Anything multilingual or heavily idiomatic may either pass through clean or get flagged unfairly. Is using an AI detector enough on its own? Nope. They're tools, not judges. Think of them as bloodhounds — you still need human judgment, especially in academic or legal contexts. Use them as part of a broader strategy, not your only line of defense. For over 200 years, the New York Post has been America's go-to source for bold news, engaging stories, in-depth reporting, and now, insightful shopping guidance. We're not just thorough reporters – we sift through mountains of information, test and compare products, and consult experts on any topics we aren't already schooled specialists in to deliver useful, realistic product recommendations based on our extensive and hands-on analysis. Here at The Post, we're known for being brutally honest – we clearly label partnership content, and whether we receive anything from affiliate links, so you always know where we stand. We routinely update content to reflect current research and expert advice, provide context (and wit) and ensure our links work. Please note that deals can expire, and all prices are subject to change.
Forbes
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Is Donald Trump An Authentic Leader?
On the performative nature of authenticity, and why Trump exposes the paradoxical and unscientific meaning of the term. In a world obsessed with personal branding, real and deep fake influencers, and AI-fueled persuasion, 'authenticity' seems more valuable than ever, as the distinction between what's real and what isn't transcends everything and everyone. We no longer expect our leaders to be merely competent — a trait that, inconveniently, remains hard for most voters to identify. We want them to be 'real,' too, though no one can quite agree on what that entails in an era where even authenticity can be performative. From viral LinkedIn mantras to inspirational TED Talks, authenticity is praised as the antidote to crooked leaders, political doublespeak, and robotic managerialism, not to mention phony politicians. Indeed, research suggests that people rate 'authentic leaders' as more trustworthy, relatable, and morally grounded. And yet, despite its near-universal appeal, authenticity remains vague and elusive as a concept. We want, admire, demand it — but few can define it, especially in a sensible or cogent way, and even fewer appear to know how we would go about measuring it, at least with some degree of precision or objectivity. In the leadership literature, authenticity is generally associated with transparency, consistency, and self-awareness. In line, leaders who are seen as authentic inspire greater followership, because they appear more predictable and less manipulative. Employees trust them more, and citizens are more likely to forgive their mistakes. Consider why figures like Nelson Mandela or Angela Merkel continue to command admiration — not merely for their achievements, but for the perceived harmony between what they believed, said, and did. They were not just competent, but coherent. Conversely, politicians who appear to shapeshift with every poll are penalized — not always for their views, but for the whiff of inauthenticity. Voters would rather support someone they disagree with than someone they suspect of pandering. Indeed, perceptions of authenticity are less about ideological alignment and more about emotional resonance. People tend to see those they like as authentic — and label those they dislike as fake. Unsurprisingly, Trump supporters view him as the embodiment of authenticity, just as Obama's admirers did with him. Ask their detractors, however, and the verdict flips. In a way, the real litmus test of authenticity is whether even your critics concede that you are 'the real deal.' On that front, Trump may score higher than Obama, unless you deny the possibility that more authentic doesn't always equate to more effective… Therein lies the philosophical catch: authenticity, for all its cultural currency, is not a fixed trait. It is an attribution — something we project onto others. We can't scan a person's soul (Neuralink hasn't cracked that yet) to verify the alignment between their inner essence and their outer behavior. In truth, we struggle to verify even our own. As neuroscientist David Eagleman put it, 'The conscious mind is like a broom closet in the mansion of the brain.' Much of what drives us is hidden from ourselves, let alone others. What feels authentic might just be a well-rehearsed act — one we've repeated so often, we've come to believe it ourselves (which, admittedly, sounds great, except for the fact that the most brutal dictators in history were pretty good at it). That's why psychologists argue authenticity is socially constructed. It's not some universal signal — it's context-dependent. A CEO crying in a board meeting might be praised for vulnerability in Silicon Valley, and ridiculed as unfit in Frankfurt. Compare Obama's curated 'cool dad' persona with Merkel's austere pragmatism: both were labeled authentic, but by very different cultural standards. In the end, we judge authenticity not by some Platonic essence of the self, but by how well someone's performance matches our expectations of who they ought to be. Which brings us, inevitably, to Trump. The question is not whether he is authentic — we can't ever truly know — but why he seems authentic to so many. Trump checks all the cultural boxes of 'realness': he's blunt, unfiltered, often incoherent (even when not spontaneously so), and defiantly unrehearsed. He rants on social media at ungodly hours and insults opponents with the fervor of a WWE heel. These are not behaviors traditionally associated with leadership—but to many, that's the point. His refusal to play by the rules of political etiquette is precisely what makes him persuasive. Unlike the focus-grouped politician who triangulates every utterance, Trump performs spontaneity. And for a certain kind of voter, that performance is more persuasive than policy. So how do we assess authenticity more analytically? As I illustrate in my forthcoming book, we can determine this by examining Trump vis-à-vis the four mainstream tenets or mantras for examining authenticity in others (not just leaders), namely: (1) always be honest with yourself and others; (2) always be true to your values, no matter what; (3) don't worry about what people think of you; and (4) bring your whole self to work. 1. Is Trump brutally honest with himself and others? Trump is certainly honest with others — at least in the sense that he says what he thinks. Whether those thoughts are factually accurate is another matter entirely. Although there's little evidence of self-reflection or self-critique, we simply don't know whether his statements are improvised or calculated, even when they seem spontaneous. Furthermore, there's no way to know whether he truly believes some of the over-the-top comments he makes, for instance on his own capabilities. When he tells us that he is 'a very stable genius', does he truly believe it? It would be easier to prove or disprove whether such statements are factually correct than whether he actually believes them himself. Evolutionary psychology shows that truly believing such statements even when they are not factually correct (what psychologists refer to as self-deception) is rather common in humans because it helps us display convincing signs of confidence and be regarded as competent. In other words, the best way to fool others is to fool yourself first. This introduces an interesting paradox: your likelihood of being perceived as authentic increases when you are not honest with yourself. By the same token, if you are honest with yourself, and therefore aware of your limitations, you may not be perceived as confident and therefore competent! In this way, Trump's self-deception may be a powerful tool to come across as genuine and competent – people are more likely to believe you are a stable genius if they see that you truly believe it yourself when you make such statements. 2. Is Trump uncompromisingly true to his values? Trump's values are difficult to pin down ideologically, but he is consistent in tone and temperament. He prizes dominance, loyalty, and personal success — values that appear deeply ingrained across decades of business and political life. He doesn't pivot or play nice to broaden appeal. That may limit his coalition, but it boosts the perception that he 'sticks to his guns.' Also, his decisions seem consistently optimized to enhance self-interest (either at national, party, or individual level), and despite his self-presentation as master deal maker he seems quite transparent in the goals and outcomes he pursues. To be sure, those who don't share his values will not accept that he is acting authentically by 'following his values no matter what'. This is an important reminder of the fact that value-centricity is not inherently beneficial or effective in leaders: what matters is what your values are, whether they are shared by others, and how they impact others (not just your voters, but society at large). In fact, history is replete with examples of leaders who were clearly true to their values, and impressively executed against them, but without having much in the form of positive effects (and often many negative effects) on their followers. 3. Is Trump unbothered by what people think of him? This one seems tailor-made for Trump. He thrives on attention but is often indifferent — when not hostile — to criticism. Most politicians spin, apologize, or moderate. Trump doubles down. Whether it's calling opponents nicknames, attacking journalists, or airing grievances, he seems genuinely unconcerned with being liked by everyone. In the authenticity game, that's a powerful signal: he performs as someone who is beyond calculation. To be sure, breaking prosocial etiquette norms does not make you authentic, just like being controversial doesn't make you right. Still, given that overt and aggressive confrontation tends to be uncharacteristic in a typical politician (and even someone with traditional political skills), it can make you seem authentic regardless of whether this is a calculated self-presentational strategy. It's like being a social media troll: you offend, and some people will celebrate your radical candor! That said, this disregard for what people think of you is also emblematic of a narcissistic personality, whether in its clinical or sub-clinical (highly functioning) form. Research on vulnerable narcissism suggests that those who lash out or seem impervious to criticism may in fact be protecting a fragile ego—especially when rejection threatens their self-image. Trump's combative and adversarial style, far from indicating thick skin, may signal the opposite: a compulsive need to dominate the narrative to avoid feeling diminished. As a result, what looks like radical candor may actually be a meticulously constructed performance of invulnerability. 4. Does Trump bring his whole self to work? Unquestionably. Trump does not compartmentalize. The same persona that tweets 'covfefe' at midnight is the one addressing (and trying to dismantle) the UN General Assembly. His speeches, interviews, and online posts share the same syntax, cadences, and vocabulary. His business brand, political identity, and personal life blur into one. That's the very definition of bringing your whole self to work—for better or worse. In fact, applying one of the most common scientific and popular criteria for defining authenticity, namely consistency between what leaders say and do, there's no question that with Trump (at least his current iteration) what you see is what you get – after nearly 150 days of presidency, he has enacted most of his intended plans and promises. To be sure, unlike Melania, who also has access to the private or personal version of the president, we will never know whether the home version of Trump is radically different from his professional self, which is the norm with most leaders (and people). Conclusion: More Authentic, Less Effective? So, is Trump an authentic leader? From the perspective of public perception, probably yes — at least to those who admire him. Even many critics concede that his rawness makes him 'real.' He stands out precisely because he does not seem like a conventional politician. But here's the irony: the very traits that enhance his reputation for authenticity—lack of filter, abrasiveness, impulsivity — also limit his effectiveness as a leader, particularly in contexts that require diplomacy, coalition-building, and emotional intelligence. Indeed, if you were tasked with coaching Trump, the likely strategy would be to curb his most 'authentic' impulses: inject some tact, broaden his emotional bandwidth, tone down the narcissism, and embrace more perspective-taking. That might make him more effective — but also less 'himself.' Such is the paradox of authenticity in leadership: being too true to yourself can inhibit your leadership talents. Ultimately, the case of Donald Trump reminds us that authenticity is not an unqualified virtue. Like most traits, it is only beneficial in moderation and context. What followers experience as authenticity may simply be a refusal to conform. But in politics — as in life —there's a fine line between being genuine and being a jerk. The best leaders know how to walk that line without losing either their compass or their followers. In other words, they are clear about where their right to be themselves ends, and their obligation to others begins. Importantly, while people seem to genuinely love the concept of 'authenticity' (not just in leaders, but humans in general), we would do well to acknowledge that, alas, there is just no objective way to quantify how authentic someone is, or whether someone is acting in an authentic way or not. Rather, authenticity is retrofitted to affection: we tend to deem people authentic if we like them, and fake if we don't. In politics, this creates a curious paradox. Donald Trump is hailed as the very embodiment of authenticity — by his supporters. So too is Barack Obama — by his own. But ask the other side, and the verdict flips. Same goes for charisma: it is an attribution we make about people we like and admire, because they seem better able to influence and persuade us, because we share their beliefs, values, and personal attributes, to the point of embodying a part of who we are or want to be. In that sense, Freud was onto something when we noted that our connection with leaders is in itself narcissistic: we love people who represent who we are, and when they are also leaders who appear to love us, our love is a subliminal and socially legitimate way of loving ourselves. In the end, authenticity may be less a moral virtue than a psychological illusion —comforting, relatable, and occasionally dangerous. We crave it in leaders because it reassures us that someone, somewhere, is being 'real' in a world that often feels fake. But the paradox is hard to escape: the more someone tries to prove their authenticity, the less authentic they seem. Perhaps the lesson is this: in leadership, as in life, being true to yourself only matters if your 'self' is worth following.
News18
07-06-2025
- Entertainment
- News18
Blake Lively Slams Justin Baldoni For Contradicting His Advocacy For Women
Last Updated: Blake's team slammed him for challenging all the women's organisations who have spoken out against him. In a recent turn in the legal feud between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, the actress has sharply criticised her It Ends With Her co-star for undermining his long-standing image as a women's rights advocate. In a statement released by her team on Thursday, June 5, Blake condemned Baldoni for publicly challenging the credibility of several women's organisations that have spoken out against him. '19 leading survivors and organisations devoted to women's rights, children's rights and domestic violence have now signed onto four separate amicus briefs," said Blake's team in a statement to Us Weekly. These groups include the National Organisation for Women, Women's Justice NOW and the National Network to End Domestic Violence. They said that these organisations are 'united" in opposing Justin's move to 'dismantle a law designed to protect women who speak up — simply to protect himself." Blake's team also said, 'Rather than defend his case on the facts, Baldoni is now contradicting years of his own public persona — abandoning the message of his #MeToo YouTube's, podcasts, TED Talks, and interviews." They continued that Justin, in the past, used to urge men 'to listen to the women in your life … to hold their anguish and actually believe them, even if what they're saying is against you,'" her team stated in the statement, pointing out how his team was challenging the amicus briefs of these organisations. 'These women and organisations are sounding the alarm about his DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) tactics and the chilling effect they could have well beyond this case," the actress' team concluded. The new update came just days after Judge Lewis J. Liman of the Southern District of New York denied Blake's motion to dismiss the emotional distress claims against the 41-year-old actor-director. This happened after Justin's lawyers asked to see her medical records, and his team said that she was backing out of her initial claims. But Blake claimed that she had no plans to drop the claims of emotional distress. In a statement to the aforementioned media outlet, Blake's lawyers, Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb, said, 'The court denied Wayfarer's motion. He told the parties to continue their discussions about the technicalities of how 2 of the 15 claims will be voluntarily dismissed. Ms. Lively has offered to dismiss those claims because they are no longer necessary, and she will continue to pursue emotional distress damages through other claims in her lawsuit, including sexual harassment and retaliation." The legal fight between Blake and Justin began in December 2024, with the actress' complaint against the latter, where she accused him of sexual harassment and a smear campaign against her. Justin, in response, denied the claims and filed a $400 million defamation lawsuit against her, her husband, Ryan Reynolds and her publicist Leslie Sloane. The case is expected to go on trial in March 2026. First Published:
Buzz Feed
06-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Buzz Feed
Blake Lively Gets Org Support Amid Justin Baldoni Trial
A spokesperson for Blake Lively issued a statement as the number of organizations submitting amicus briefs in support of her amid her legal battle with Justin Baldoni hit 19. In December, Blake sued her It Ends With Us co-star and director, as well as the studio Wayfarer and other parties, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. Justin subsequently sued Blake, alleging defamation and extortion, among other things. Both parties have denied the allegations of the other. Before we get into the update, you might be wondering what an amicus brief is. It stems from the Latin phrase "friend of the court," which allows people who aren't parties in the case to submit documents of support, arguing that the impact of the case will also affect them. So, why are all these orgs issuing amicus briefs? Let's take one that's been signed by 14 women's and anti-violence organizations. In it, they argue, "The retaliatory defamation lawsuit instigated by the Wayfarer parties against Blake Livelyis another example of 'DARVO' tactics (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) in the post-#MeToo era where perpetrators of 'sexual violence,' in particular sexual harassment, attempt to silence their victims into submission." After a new brief was filed this week by Child USA, a nonprofit against child abuse, a spokesperson for Blake issued a statement to BuzzFeed that read, "19 leading survivors and organizations devoted to women's rights, children's rights and domestic violence have now signed onto four separate amicus briefs. All are united in opposing Justin Baldoni's attempt to dismantle a law designed to protect women who speak up—simply to protect himself." Justin's attorney has been reached for comment. "The latest briefs, filed by Child USA and Sanctuary for Families, add the voices of renowned nonprofits, victim advocates, and experts from around the world who are dedicated to safeguarding the rights and well-being of people who speak up," they continued. Justin has never been accused of child abuse. "Rather than defend his case on the facts, Baldoni is now contradicting years of his own public persona—abandoning the message of his #MeToo YouTube's, podcasts, TED Talks, and interviews, where he once upon a time urged men 'to listen to the women in your life…to hold their anguish and actually believe them, even if what they're saying is against you.' These women and organizations are sounding the alarm about his DARVO tactics, and the chilling effect they could have well beyond this case," the statement concluded. BuzzFeed has reached out to a representative for Justin for comment.
Pink Villa
06-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Pink Villa
Blake Lively Calls Out Justin Baldoni for 'Abandoning' Female Advocacy: 'Women Should Not Have Their Voices Heard...'
Blake Lively has accused her It Ends With Us co-star Justin Baldoni of contradicting his long-standing public advocacy for women. The actress's team issued a strong statement on June 5, saying Baldoni's defamation lawsuit against her undermines the values he once promoted through platforms like his TED Talks, podcasts, and interviews. During the film's promotional campaign, Baldoni partnered with NO MORE, an organization focused on ending domestic violence and sexual assault, as per US Weekly. At the time, he said, 'It's easy to ask, especially as men, 'Why do women stay?' But the real question we need to ask is, 'Why do men harm?'' He called the story of It Ends With Us difficult but important and expressed gratitude for the partnership with @nomoreorg. However, Blake Lively now claims Justin Baldoni's legal actions contradict his public statements. 'Rather than defend his case on the facts, Baldoni is now contradicting years of his own public persona,' her spokesperson said. They added that he is abandoning the message of his #MeToo YouTube's, podcasts, TED Talks, and interviews, where he once upon a time urged men 'to listen to the women in your life…to hold their anguish and actually believe them, even if what they're saying is against you.' Here are the 19 women's advocacy groups backing Blake Lively in legal battle Lively's team revealed that 19 women's rights and survivors' organizations have signed onto four separate amicus briefs in support of her. The groups include Sanctuary for Families, National Organization for Women, Women's Justice NOW, Equal Rights Advocates, and Child USA. 'These organizations are united in opposing Justin Baldoni's attempt to dismantle a law designed to protect women who speak up, simply to protect himself,' Lively's team said in the statement. 'They are sounding the alarm about his DARVO tactics and the chilling effect they could have beyond this case.' DARVO, short for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender, is a tactic where perpetrators deny accusations, attack the victim's credibility, and portray themselves as victims. The briefs argue that Baldoni's lawsuit reflects these tactics and could discourage others from coming forward. In response, Baldoni's legal team has reportedly challenged the inclusion of the amicus briefs, stating the organizations should not have their voices heard. According to the briefs, the lawsuit against Lively is the prototypical suit that California's AB 933 law was meant to prevent. One excerpt from Child USA stated that such lawsuits allow perpetrators to weaponize the judicial system to discredit survivor accounts. The latest updates come just days after Judge Lewis Liman ruled on June 2 that Lively's emotional distress claims would not move forward after her legal team withdrew them. The judge also rejected Baldoni's request for her private therapy and medical records, stating they were no longer relevant. Despite the dismissal of some claims, the case continues to receive support from prominent advocacy groups. Lively's spokesperson said that these briefs add the voices of renowned nonprofits, victim advocates, and experts dedicated to safeguarding the rights of people who speak up.
