Blake Lively’s Subpoenas: Free Speech or Intimidation?

Introduction

Blake Lively’s legal battle with Justin Baldoni, her co-star in It Ends With Us, has spiraled into something bigger than a celebrity feud. It’s now a flashpoint for debates about free speech, online criticism, and the power dynamics of Hollywood. Lively’s attorneys have issued subpoenas to social media platforms like Google and X, targeting critics like McKenzie Folks, a Kansas mom who posts on TikTok, and big names like Perez Hilton and Candace Owens. The subpoenas seek personal details—names, emails, even bank account info—to prove these critics are part of a coordinated smear campaign allegedly orchestrated by Baldoni. This move, reported by Variety on July 10, 2025, raises a thorny question: is Lively gathering evidence or trying to scare her detractors into silence? The case echoes the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial, where online criticism shaped public perception. Let’s break down what’s happening, why it matters, and what it means for entertainment journalism.

The Legal Battle: What’s at Stake?

Lively’s lawsuit, filed in federal court and set for trial in March 2026, accuses Baldoni of sexual harassment on the It Ends With Us set and claims he retaliated with a digital smear campaign. Her team argues this campaign is ongoing, with critics—some anonymous, some not—spreading narratives that paint Lively as the villain. The subpoenas, targeting 16 YouTubers and others, aim to uncover who’s behind these accounts. Variety notes that Lively’s spokesperson calls this an evidence-gathering tool, not an accusation. But why does this matter?

First, it’s about accountability. If Baldoni’s team is orchestrating a bot-driven attack, as Lively alleges, it could expose a new playbook for Hollywood feuds. Second, it’s about power. Lively, a major star married to Ryan Reynolds, has resources most don’t. Critics like Folks, who can’t afford lawyers, feel overwhelmed. A mistake here could set a precedent for celebrities to target online voices, chilling free speech. If Lively’s team overreaches, it risks alienating fans and creators who value open discourse.

Subpoenas as a Tool: Fact-Finding or Fear?

Subpoenas are standard in lawsuits, but using them to unmask online critics is rare. Lively’s team has requested extensive data from Google—IP addresses, physical addresses, even credit card numbers—for 16 YouTube accounts. Variety reports that some creators, like Kjersti Flaa, see this as intimidation, not investigation. Why? Many of these creators, like Folks, operate independently, covering the case based on public filings. They haven’t spoken to Baldoni or his team.

The process works like this: attorneys file a subpoena with a platform, which notifies the user. The user can then fight it, but that’s expensive. Folks, for example, wrote her own motion to quash, as she couldn’t afford legal help. Mistakes in this process—like targeting genuine critics instead of bots—can backfire. Gregory Doll, a Los Angeles attorney, told Variety that going after creators is “foolhardy” and a “PR backfire.” If Lively’s team fails to prove a coordinated campaign, they risk looking like bullies silencing dissent.

The Free Speech Debate

The case has sparked a broader conversation about free speech online. Creators like Andy Signore, who’s making a documentary on the feud, argue Lively’s subpoenas threaten the right to criticize. Variety quotes Signore saying, “I’m going to fight them tooth and nail.” Flaa, another targeted creator, told Variety the case is now “about freedom of speech on the internet.” Why does this matter? Social media lets anyone weigh in on celebrity drama, but when stars like Lively use legal tools to unmask critics, it raises questions about who gets to speak.

Common mistakes in these situations include overreaching legally or misjudging public sentiment. Lively’s team risks alienating fans if they’re seen as targeting everyday people like Folks, who posts from Kansas with a sequin-covered spatula. The consequence? A backlash that amplifies the very criticism they’re trying to stop. X posts from July 2025 show creators rallying around Folks, turning her subpoena into content that boosts their followings.

Hollywood Feuds and Digital Warfare

This isn’t the first time a celebrity feud has gone digital. The 2022 Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial saw Heard face a wave of online criticism, which her attorney Elaine Bredehoft told Variety was orchestrated by Depp’s team (a claim they denied). Lively’s case feels similar but with a twist: she’s proactively targeting critics. Entertainment journalists have to navigate these battles carefully. Covering a feud like this means verifying claims—Lively’s harassment allegations, Baldoni’s alleged campaign—while avoiding defamation risks.

How do journalists do this? They cross-check court filings, like Lively’s, available via federal court records, and seek statements from both sides. Mistakes, like rushing to publish unverified claims, can lead to lawsuits or loss of credibility. The Hollywood Reporter emphasizes the need for fact-checking in celebrity disputes, citing cases like Shattered Glass, where fabrication ruined a journalist’s career. If journalists don’t tread carefully, they risk becoming part of the story.

The Role of Social Media Creators

Social media creators like Folks, Signore, and Owens aren’t traditional journalists, but they’re shaping the narrative. Folks, for instance, started covering the case after reading filings and concluded Baldoni was the underdog. Her TikTok videos, viewed thousands of times, reflect a growing trend: regular people influencing public opinion. Variety notes that these creators often lack the resources to fight legal battles, making them vulnerable to subpoenas.

Why does this matter? Creators amplify stories traditional media might miss, but they also risk spreading unverified info. A common mistake is taking court filings at face value without context—Lively’s claims of harassment, for example, are allegations, not proven facts. If creators don’t clarify this, they can fuel misinformation. The consequence? They become targets, as Lively’s subpoenas show, and their platforms turn into battlegrounds for legal and PR wars.

Ethical Challenges in Covering Celebrity Lawsuits

Entertainment journalists face ethical dilemmas in cases like this. First, there’s the risk of defamation—publishing unproven claims about Lively or Baldoni could lead to lawsuits. Second, there’s bias. Journalists might favor the bigger star (Lively) or the underdog (Baldoni) based on personal leanings. The Hollywood Reporter reported on May 27, 2025, that ethical reporting requires transparency about sources and avoiding sensationalism.

How do journalists avoid mistakes? They verify claims through multiple sources, like court documents or firsthand interviews. They also disclose conflicts—like if they’ve worked with Lively’s team before. Failing to do so can erode trust. In the Lively-Baldoni case, journalists must balance covering the subpoenas’ impact with not amplifying unverified allegations. Ignoring this can turn a news outlet into a megaphone for one side.

FAQs

Why is Blake Lively subpoenaing online critics?

Lively’s team is seeking evidence to prove Justin Baldoni orchestrated a smear campaign against her, as alleged in her lawsuit. The subpoenas target account details from platforms like Google and X to identify if critics are coordinated. Variety reports this is about connecting “evidentiary dots,” but critics argue it’s intimidation.

How do journalists verify celebrity lawsuit claims?

Journalists cross-check court filings, seek statements from both parties, and consult legal experts. The Hollywood Reporter emphasizes using primary sources, like federal court records, to avoid defamation. Mistakes, like publishing unverified claims, can lead to lawsuits or loss of credibility.

Is Lively’s approach silencing free speech?

Critics like Kjersti Flaa argue Lively’s subpoenas chill free speech by targeting independent voices. Variety notes that creators like McKenzie Folks, who lack legal resources, feel intimidated. If misjudged, Lively’s actions could spark a backlash, amplifying criticism.

Why do celebrity feuds go digital?

Social media amplifies feuds, letting anyone weigh in. The Depp-Heard trial showed how online narratives shape perceptions. Lively’s case, per Variety, highlights how stars use legal tools to counter criticism, but this risks alienating fans who value open discourse.

How do creators cover lawsuits ethically?

Creators must clarify that allegations, like Lively’s harassment claims, aren’t proven. They should cite public records and avoid sensationalism. Variety notes that mistakes, like spreading unverified info, can make creators targets in legal battles.

Conclusion

Blake Lively’s subpoenas in her lawsuit against Justin Baldoni have turned a Hollywood feud into a debate about free speech and power. Her team’s push to unmask critics—reported by Variety on July 10, 2025—aims to prove a coordinated smear campaign, but it risks alienating fans and creators like McKenzie Folks, who feel targeted. Entertainment journalists and creators must navigate this carefully, verifying claims and avoiding bias to maintain credibility. The case shows how digital platforms amplify celebrity disputes, but also how legal tools can backfire. What do you think—fact-finding or intimidation? Share your thoughts below!