Blake v Justin: Nerdiness, mean girls and how to dress for court

Summary

Podcast Summary: Fame Under Fire

Episode: Blake v Justin: Nerdiness, Mean Girls, and How to Dress for Court
Host: Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty
Date: February 26, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode is devoted to answering listener questions about two headline-making legal disputes:

1. The Blake Lively v. Justin Baldoni civil harassment and defamation lawsuit, unfolding in celebrity circles and public feeds.
2. The Macron v. Candace Owens transphobic defamation suit spanning France, the US, and global influencer culture.

Resident trial attorney Sean Kent joins Anoushka to break down the legal strategies, internet drama, and, yes, the significance of courtroom fashion choices. The show offers a fact-forward, myth-busting look at what’s fact, conjecture, and public spectacle.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Blake Lively v. Justin Baldoni: Lawsuit Background and Legal Maneuvering

[01:30–05:22]

• Background: Blake Lively is suing Justin Baldoni (and others, including Jamie Heath and Wayfarer Studios) for sexual harassment, hostile work conditions, and a smear campaign during and after filming "It Ends With Us." Baldoni denies all allegations.
• Defamation Countersuit: Baldoni filed his own $400 million defamation suit, later dismissed. Sean Kent clarifies why:
  • Statements made in lawsuits are legally protected and can’t be the basis for defamation claims, as this would discourage people from making legitimate complaints.
  • Quote:
    “You cannot use the filing of a lawsuit and the things that somebody puts there as your basis for defamation... it would have a chilling effect.” (Sean Kent, 03:47)
  • If Baldoni tried to refile based on similar facts, he'd hit legal obstacles like the statute of limitations.

2. Taylor Swift’s Inadvertent Role and the Game of Thrones Metaphor

[05:42–13:12]

• Listener Question: Lola (Canada) probes the credibility fallout for Taylor Swift, citing a tabloid headline allegedly linking Swift to “bad blood” with Lively and the “I am not your dragon” phrase.
• Dissecting the Texts:
  • Unredacted texts show Lively turned to Taylor Swift and Ryan Reynolds for creative support and even asked Taylor to communicate enthusiasm for a rewritten script scene.
  • Swift played along with Lively’s “dragons” metaphor (a Game of Thrones reference), which was later misconstrued in the press as evidence of personal fracture.
• Legal and Public Perception:
  • Quote:
    “From a legal standpoint, though, Taylor insinuating or continuing the metaphor that she is one of Blake's dragons is quite damaging to Blake's defense.” (Anoushka, 11:17)
  • Sean explains that the jury will weigh credibility, and such texts can be weaponized to paint the stars as "mean girls" or manipulative behind the scenes.
  • Quote:
    “When you put a witness on the stand, the theory is that their credibility goes on the stand with them… And that's when it becomes an issue that they're more worried about Tay Tay's credibility than... actual facts.” (Sean Kent, 11:17–12:58)

3. Public Image, Internet Culture and the “Nerdiness” Factor

[08:27–10:53]

• Humorous banter between Anoushka and Sean about Game of Thrones references and nerd culture.
  • Quote:
    “You have a seven-foot statue of Superman, and your dog is named Clark Kent.” (Anoushka, 08:38)
    “It's a twelve-foot statue, but let’s keep going.” (Sean, 08:45)

4. Courtroom Fashion: Olive Green ‘Fit and Legal Strategy

[16:16–20:30]

• Listener Lola asks: Was there legal strategy behind both parties turning up in matching olive-green outfits for mediation?
• Sean’s Insight:
  • Jurors and the public notice fashion; attire is carefully chosen to shape perception. Matching colors may be a coincidence or a strategic effort to appear relatable, “of the moment,” or neutral.
  • Notable Quote:
    “Fashion goes a long way to influence how individuals think. Good lawyers are very conscious of how their clients look, act, and dress because they know the jury is watching.” (Sean Kent, 18:03–20:30)
• Reference to infamous trials where wardrobe was used to influence perception (e.g., Menendez brothers, Cardi B, A$AP Rocky).

5. Macron v. Candace Owens: Defamation, Transphobia, and Malice

[21:11–25:41]

• Background: French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte are suing Candace Owens for defamation after she persistently claimed Brigitte is transgender and part of a spectacle of elite deceit—also tying in bizarre allegations of pedophilia, “Baphomet worship,” and incest.
• Listener Kate (Australia) asks: Why is it inherently defamatory to claim someone is transgender? Would a suit still be possible without the other allegations?
• Sean’s Legal Take:
  • Even if being transgender isn’t universally seen as damaging, courts consider whether the person in question feels harmed and how their reputation, public and private, is affected.
  • Quote:
    “It’s not about what the public believes… it’s how she feels that she was defamed… times have changed.” (Sean Kent, 23:49–24:46)
• Malice and Damages:
  • The Macrons must prove Owens acted with “actual malice” and that there are consequences (humiliation, being merchandised, social awkwardness at events).

6. What Makes Someone a ‘Journalist’ and the ‘Bad Journalism’ Defense

[26:57–32:07]

• Listener Emily (UK) asks: Is there an official definition of ‘journalist’ when using the defense of “bad journalism” in court?
• Legal Precedent:
  • Sean explains the roots of the “actual malice” standard from New York Times v. Sullivan and the protection it affords those engaging in journalism, even if sloppy—as long as it’s not malicious.
  • In today’s digital age, there’s no solid legal definition of a journalist; anyone with an audience (TikTokers, YouTubers, influencers) can be both the media and the subject of lawsuits.
  • Quote:
    “There’s not a legal definition of a journalist… It’s involving everybody on social media.” (Sean Kent, 30:14)
  • Who gets sued often comes down to reach, resources, and platform.

7. Podcast Chemistry, 'Seanisms,' and Listener Engagement

• Banter about “Seanisms” (his go-to expressions), and encouragement for more audience questions in future episodes.
• Lighthearted self-acknowledgment:
  • Quote:
    “I need that clip. I need that quote. I need to get a t-shirt made that I am a fashion diva.” (Sean Kent, 32:26)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Legal Clarity:
  • “You cannot use the filing of a lawsuit... as your basis for defamation. It would have a chilling effect.” —Sean Kent [03:47]
• Celebrity Credibility:
  • “From a legal standpoint, though, Taylor insinuating... that she is one of Blake’s dragons is quite damaging to Blake’s defense.” —Anoushka [11:17]
• Jury Room Mindset:
  • “Good lawyers are very conscious on how their clients look... because they know the jury is watching.” —Sean [20:30]
• On Changing Times:
  • “Times have changed... It’s not necessarily an insult that people are starting to understand significantly more.” —Sean [24:46]
• Defining Journalism:
  • “There’s not a legal definition of a journalist... it’s involving everybody on social media.” —Sean [30:14]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Blake v Justin Lawsuit Explainer: 01:30–05:22
• Taylor Swift & The ‘Dragon’ Texts: 05:42–13:12
• Game of Thrones Banter / Nerdiness: 08:27–10:53
• Matching Outfits & Fashion in Court: 16:16–20:30
• Macrons v. Candace Owens: 21:11–25:41
• Malice & Cognizable Damages: 25:06–26:55
• Definition of 'Journalist' + Bad Journalism Defense: 26:57–32:07
• Listener Banter, Closing: 32:07–end

---

Takeaways

• The lines between legal argument, reputation management, and fandom drama are more blurred than ever in the social media age.
• What celebrities wear, text, or meme can easily become courtroom fodder.
• The evolving role of “journalists” and influencer-reporters injects new uncertainty into who gets protected speech status and who’s vulnerable to powerful lawsuits.
• Audience questions, humor, and inside baseball (“Seanisms”) enliven complex legal explanations and give an accessible entry into celebrity culture under scrutiny.

---

Want to weigh in? DM Anoushka on Instagram or TikTok (@anoushkamd), and subscribe for more myth-busting media coverage and headline justice.

Transcript

[Sean Kent]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk.

[Ad Voiceover]

If you're an H Vac technician and a call comes in, Grainger knows that you need a partner that helps you find the right product fast and hassle free. And you know that when the first problem of the day is a clanking blower motor, there's no need to break a sweat. With Grainger's easy to use website and product details, you're confident you'll soon have everything humming right along. Call 1-800-GRAINGER clickgrainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done. If you're an H Vac technician and a call comes in, Grainger knows that you need a partner that helps you find the right product fast and hassle free. And you know that when the first problem of the day is a clanking blower motor, there's no need to break a sweat. With Grainger's easy to use website and product details, you're confident you'll soon have everything humming right along. Call 1-800-GRAINGER clickgranger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Hello and welcome back to Fame Under Fire with me, Anoushka Mutanda Doughty. Today we're going through the inbox, taking a look at the questions you want answering with. We asked for questions on Blake Lively Justin Baldoni trial and the Macron's Candace Owens case. You sent them in and we're going to answer them. So just a reminder, that's messages about the defamation lawsuit that French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte have brought against the right wing influencer Candace Owens, as well as questions on the Blake Lively Justin Baldoni trial, which we will be covering live in the flesh in New York in May. Joining me as usual is our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent. Hi, Sean.

[Sean Kent]

Hey, Anushka, how are you doing?

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

I'm good. This is a bit more of a subdued look for you.

[Sean Kent]

A gray suit, very casual. I'm a casual guy. I'm working on my understatedness. So this is a subtle, it's a

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

little bit a light touch approach. Sean, we.

[Sean Kent]

There you go.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

But we still appreciate it. Some might say classic, classic, Classic.

[Sean Kent]

Sean, what is it? What do y' all call this? Is this. It's a vest. So what do y' all call it? An undercoat. We call them vest.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

What do you call waistcoat?

[Sean Kent]

Waistcoat. There you go. That's what you say I'm wearing a waistcoat. Yeah.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

And then you always wear What I would call a vest. But you call a wife beater.

[Sean Kent]

Yes. Yeah, we call them white.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Well, I take issue with that name.

[Sean Kent]

Don't say that. Yeah, that's what they're called in the South. I'm a Southerner.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Okay, we've got our first set of questions on the Blake Lively Justin Baldoni trial. Reminder. Blake Lively is suing Justin Baldoni, accusing him of sexual harassment and waging a smear campaign against her. She's also suing Jamie Heath and Wayfarer Studios. But most of our questions today are focusing on the Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively of it all. So they start together in the film. It ends with us. A lot of you already know all of this, but Lively sued Baldoni in December 2024. Baldoni strongly denies the claims and is defending the lawsuit, which named him and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, which was behind the film, as the perpetrators of sexual harassment, hostile work conditions, a smear campaign. If you wanted any more background, we've done multiple episodes on this. But I'm going to jump straight into the questions. This one is from Lucy in Virginia. Lucy says, I know Baldoni's lawsuit was dismissed. Okay, so Baldoni did file a lawsuit for $400 million saying that basically Blake was defaming him. She says, I know it was dismissed because he said Blake was defaming him by filing complaints in her lawsuit. But if he wins the civil case and the jury says, we don't believe that Blake was sexually harassed, can he refile that lawsuit with the backup that one jury already found him to be telling the truth? Sean, take it away.

[Sean Kent]

No, let's make it just very simple. He cannot refile the lawsuit under the same theory that he filed the lawsuit under originally. What the court said is, you cannot use the filing of a lawsuit and the things that somebody puts there as your basis for defamation at any point in time. Because what it would do is it would have a chilling effect. It would stop people from filing lawsuits, and that's not what we want to do, because if somebody has done something poorly against you, you should have the right to file a lawsuit against them. Now, separately, if he comes with a different theory, if he says it wasn't the stuff that's put in the lawsuit,

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

then, yes, he could bring it so he could refile. Just you said, using a separate legal theory, but could that legal theory be. I'm not saying she defamed me by filing her original lawsuit, because that's protected, but I am saying that this jury found her to be not telling the truth. I've been saying she was not telling the truth since the beginning. And her whole, her whole claim from. No, because that would be back to her filing her lawsuit. I just think she lied on my name publicly.

[Sean Kent]

And he's going to have one massive problem if he misses that. And we've talked about that before. The statute of limitations, you have two years, one year depending on the time that the alleged conduct happened to file your lawsuit. So if he goes back to the time of the first thing she says that was defamatory, the response will be that was three years ago or four years ago, whatever, you are past the statute of limitation. So you have lost your right to bring any type of lawsuit against me whatsoever.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Is a good question, though.

[Sean Kent]

It's a great question. But to answer your question, in Virginia,

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

no, we actually have a two parter from the next listener. This is from Lola in Canada. Lola needs her own show. Yeah, yeah. Okay. There's a theme. She needs her own show and podcast where, where they just let her talk for 50 minutes into a microphone. But let's play the first part of her question.

[Lola (Listener)]

I would only ever send the British Broadcasting Corporation a sexy, flirty, ball busting voice note, never with teeth. Anyways, my main question for now, how cooked is Taylor Swift credibility wise after she and her own PR were presumably the great minds behind a tabloid headline published in February of last year titled, and I quote, taylor Swift bad blood with Blake Lively. Dot, dot, dot. I am not your dragon. Three exclamation marks, end quote. How does even the biggest name in pop recover from just straight applying to us like that?

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

So I'm, I'm, I'll take the beginning bit of this one, Sean, because I think we need a little bit of background there. Lola is deep in this case. She said that the releasing of the files was actually the best day of her life of the Blake Lively Justin Baldoni unredacted text messages. So she's clearly got level of expertise here. But let's unpack what she was saying there. So what we can tell from the text messages that were unredacted between Blake and Justin is that Blake had rewritten a scene in it ends with us, the rooftop scene. There's been a lot of conversation about this. Now we know that Justin Baldoni's claims is that Blake Clively was wrestling control of the movie from him. So she sends him these rewritten pages. And we know she's done this because she's texted around this situation. She felt she put a lot of work into those pages. A lot of hard work. And she says he responded by simply thanking her for her fashion, which she found dismissive. Right. So she sends the pages to Justin and then she asks Taylor Swift, T. Swift, who is coming over to her flat. We have these text messages to praise the pages she has written. She says, quote, can you tell him you're excited for the movie, that you read the book and that you're freaking out over the pages I sent you A little bit more later on, she says you don't have to read it, but it's a quick read. We can assume that Taylor does what she was asked to do by Blake because there are text messages thanking her afterwards, sort of praising the level of enthusiasm she gave towards Blake's rewritten pages. Now, in later texts from Justin, he says he liked the pages. It really does help a lot. It's so much more fun and interested. And then he says open brackets. And I would have felt that way without Ryan and Taylor. Ryan being a reference to Ryan Reynolds, Blake's husband. And he finishes with a smiley face. Now Blake responds in a long text. She lays out the fact that she felt his comment on her having a lot of passion rather than actual feedback was dismissive when it came to Ryan and Taylor. She said this. I'm the luckiest person, shouldn't say person, but I can't say it on the planet to have them as my dance moms level stage mums. They are embarrassingly effusive. That said, they are my most trusted partners and the people I go to first with anything creative I touch. Later in the same message, we get this. Have you seen Game of Thrones?

[Sean Kent]

I have never seen an episode.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Oh, and you, you claim to be a nerd. Okay.

[Sean Kent]

I mean, I'm not that level nerd. I don't dress in like Comic Con and stuff like that and like go larking larping in the park.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

You have a, you have a seven foot statue of Superman behind you and your dog is named Clark Kent.

[Sean Kent]

It's a 12 foot statue, but let's keep going.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Which you had repainted so that the Superman was black. You are a nerd on another level, honey.

[Sean Kent]

Allegedly.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

What? But then later in the same message, we get this. So for Game of Thrones fans, you'll understand if you ever get around to watching Game of Thrones. This is Blake saying this to Justin. You will appreciate that I am Khaleesi and like her, I happen to have a few dragons, for better or for worse, but usually for better because my Dragons also protect those I fight for. So really, we all benefit from those gorgeous monsters of mine. So, you know, quickly, Khaleesi has some dragons in the show. She's referring to Ryan and Taylor as her dragons. Make of that what you will feel, how you want to feel about that, whatever. But then we get a headline that comes up from TMZ where allegedly somebody close to the story has said that Blake and Taylor are falling out because Taylor feels that Blake is using her name too much and saying, you know, I'm not your dragon. Don't use my name to get what you want in a private situation between you and the director of your movie. Now, that is what Lolo is referring to in her message. We got no indication that that article was leaked by Taylor Swift or anybody in her camp, that she penned it, that she asked for it to be released. It says sources close to the story. And there's no, you know, justification of what close to the story means. And anybody who's worked you in journalism over a period of time, different publications will take someone who, like, served food to somebody one time, and that'll be a source close to the story. So we don't know that that came from Taylor at all. We have asked, obviously, we. We didn't get a response, but we do then get these text messages released late, later on where Taylor plays along with the dragon metaphor, the Game of Thrones dragon metaphor of it all, saying to you, Blake Lively, I'm just picturing you muttering dracarys. And then I fire off those texts to Austen. So that's something that. I can't believe I'm saying this. There's something that Khaleesi says to get the dragons to breathe fire. Okay? Dracarys. So the Internet has had it, or. Don't laugh, Sean, okay? Because you are. You are really nerdy.

[Sean Kent]

I'm subtly smirking.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

No, because we nerd out together. So, like you, we do nerd.

[Sean Kent]

We are. We are nerd. And I am not upset about this. I'm like, maybe I should watch this Game of Thrones.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Yeah, I know. Well, yeah, Now Internet's had a lot to say. This is really cringy. Why are they speaking like that to each other? Other people are saying, you know, they're just two friends texting, you know, take a peek at your own messages and see if they were out to the world, how cringy you would come across. Etc. From a legal standpoint, though, Taylor insinuating or continuing the metaphor that she is one of Blake's dragons is Quite damaging to Blake's defense.

[Sean Kent]

Absolutely. What makes that a great question is when you put a witness on the stand, the theory is that their credibility goes on the stand with them. And so when someone is testifying in front of 12 people or to a jury for anything whatsoever, we always say their credibility comes with them. Which means just because you answer a question, a jury has a right to judge your credibility. And so when she is being asked questions, that is going to be something that's going to impugn her character, meaning what is her reason to lie? What is her reason to make things up? And so they're going to be allowed to ask her any questions whatsoever. They'll be able to do this because they're going to take her deposition. So they will know the answers to these questions before she theoretically gets on the standard. Will it hurt her credibility? That's going to be up to the jury, because I think you just covered it. A lot of things that'll happen is if I were representing one side, I would say these are glorified texts between friends. Anybody out there, any of you on the jury, think about your text message. Between your best friend. Think about the things that you say. We always joke, if there is a group text message, there's always two group text messages. There's a one group text message, and there's a side group text message about one of the people in the original group text message. And so that's the same thing that people in the jury will realize, but the other side is going to say, this is when they're having their truest, cleanest, most real thoughts. This is how they believe. This was a manipulative game. This is the consummate mean girl. This is Regina George and her friends trying to destroy Justin Baldoni. It's going to be a clash of her credibility. And what we worry about as trial lawyers is when it turns into a clash of credibility, what it stops becoming about is the underlying evidence. And that's when it becomes an issue that they're more worried about Tay Tay's credibility than they're worried about did the actual facts actually happen, and that becomes a problem.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

I'm just thinking about this, though, in order to explain the metaphor that's being used and how it damages the defense. Are they going to have to explain the plot of Game of Thrones? Because I've just had to do that for you a little bit.

[Sean Kent]

Yeah, you're exactly right. Because if I had Taylor Swift understand, I'd have her explain it. You know, we'd sit in front of the jury. What does this reference mean? Tell us a little bit about this. And good lawyers will be digging into all that stuff and looking for the metaphors, looking for the colloquialisms. They'll be looking for information that could influence the jury. It is as simple. Believe it or not, Anushka, when we are picking the jury, we might be looking for Game of Thrones fans, you know, looking for somebody who has said it. We want this person on that. They will understand the reference. They'll understand how mean they're being. That's how much these lawyers will put into something as simple as that reference. And that's why we say your credibility goes on the stand. So it might seem like something simple, but something like that could sway the entire case.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Yeah, but it's to Lola's point of what she's asking, the inconsistency that she's referencing is, is this article that came out which was supposedly supposed to have been leaked by Taylor Swift's camp.

[Sean Kent]

Oh, I just got the reference. Oh, the song.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

You know, for a real smart man, you could be real slow.

[Sean Kent]

That's a song.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

That's a granddad. You can get that on the jukebox.

[Sean Kent]

Gold star.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Yeah, I get it. Okay. But what Lola's saying is about inconsistencies. We have absolutely no information, evidence, or anything to substantiate the claim that, that that headline was leaked by Taylor Swift. So the only way that they could question her that about that on the stand was say they had subpoenaed text messages where she's asking for that or came out in a deposition, E.T. but they could get her on the stand and say, when you referred to yourself as being her dragon, were you basically saying, I will help you steal this man's film from him? Which obviously Blake Lively wholeheartedly denies to the second part of that question from Lola. How could Taylor Swift recover from being part of this whole unfolding legal drama, especially with those text messages which many people, and we know Lola feels this way, are seeing as cringy. I think she called her a complete Weeb in that voice note. You know, we're not inside Taylor Swift's head, but I think if you look at her past, you can probably get a good picture of the future. Her. Her artwork is very self referential. So I'd probably be keeping an eye out for a future album that tells. That tells her side of the story of what it's been like through all of this. If we remember the Kanye West, Yay, west debacle that went down with Taylor Swift a while ago. First him running on stage. Remember, this should have gone to Beyonce. She released a song about that. Then afterwards, when she was sort of canceled for that back and forth voice note that Kim Kardashian released, she had a whole album about that and what it was to be canceled and sort of refinding herself in the industry. I would wager that if she, you know, if there needs to be a version of. Of this where she tells her side of the story, it would be in the form of music. In the form of sweet music. And I'm gonna return to Lola now because we have a part two. We have. We have more.

[Lola (Listener)]

Sean, as a lawyer and a certified fashion diva, what was the legal strategy behind the comedy of showing up in the exact same fit? Diva, you said Lola just became my favorite person.

[Sean Kent]

I need to. With all due respect, I did not hear the rest of the question when she said certified fashion diva. I need to hear it again. All I heard is, Lola, call me pretty. I didn't hear anything else after that. So is there any way I could

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

hear the question, we have it again.

[Lola (Listener)]

Sean, as a lawyer and a certified fashion diva, what was the legal strategy behind the slapstick comedy of showing up in the exact same fit?

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

So this is a reference to them turning up to mediation, and they're both dressed in olive green. And I thought this was a great question to you because me and you have spoken at length about the level of thought and detail that is put into outfits, colors, cologne, you name it. And you in particular, I mean, I'm not going to give away all of your secrets, but you in particular are very attentive and when it comes to presentation. So they turned up both in kind of olive green, very neutral tone outfits, which unfortunately ended up matching. Can you talk through the thought process that you go through when picking outfits for clients and for yourself? Because I think that's some of the most interesting stuff.

[Sean Kent]

It is. And I'm glad, Lola. It's an interesting question. I didn't say great. It's an interesting thought.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

That's because. Can I just say, that's because we are compiling a list of Shaunisms. And he has this. Anytime you ask him a question he likes.

[Sean Kent]

That's a great question.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

And then again. And then he goes. He goes, john Q. Public. And then he goes, well, what happened was. So, yeah, and if anybody has any other Seanisms, do send them in, because I got a little less going.

[Sean Kent]

They do exist. Well, if you want to go back, Lola and You look at fashion and the fashion choices that lawyers think about when they're getting their clients dressed for court, it's a big deal. We can go back to, say, the Menendez trial, when Lyle and Eric Menendez were on trial back, and I don't know how old the listeners are out there, but if you go back and look at it, one of the big things in that trial was the fact that we are going to have the Menendez brothers wearing sweaters and cardigans because we wanted to make them seem much more wholesome, much more down to earth. Fashion goes a long way of influence how individuals think. We put people on the stand, depending on the type of trial, depending on the jury. We want to be very conscious on what they're wearing because there are certain colors, no matter what you are thinking, that distract people. If you look at Cardi B's trial, Cardi B, as much as she is outlandish, as much as she is crazy, when she was in trial, she was wearing very muted stuff, but it was still fashion forward. If you look at Aesop Rocky's trial, when Rihanna went to watch his trial, I guarantee his lawyers were very conscious on the things that Rihanna was wearing, because those are the things the jury are going to focus on. So if you look at Justin and if you look at Blake, the color of the season is olive. That is a color that individuals are wearing more and more. So I guarantee you they had two different fashion houses and say, the public is going to be watching. We want to ingratiate ourselves with the people. So why don't we wear a muted color of the season? And they both just happen to pick the same color. A color that is going to make John. John Q. Public, Damn you. It's going to make the public look at these people in a very nice way. You know, there used to be the old theory that we wanted to be careful when we dressed for the public, that we didn't want to look too fancy or we didn't want to look too outlandish. But that is long gone. The way of the dodo. What we don't talk about is at the end of every day or on every single lunch break. If you remember the Diddy trial, they would take breaks all the time. And what would end up happening is in that break, the jury would go back to the jury room, they would sit down together. Now, they're not allowed to talk about the case. So what they're allowed to talk about are the lawyers and the client and possibly what they're wearing. Or whatever the other people are in the courtroom. And so lawyers are very conscious, good lawyers are very conscious on how their clients look, how they act, how they dress, because they know the client, the jury is watching.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

What they are ultimately trying to create is going to replace humans.

[Sean Kent]

What it's doing is parboiling the inside of your brain.

[Alan Davis]

This could be a turning point in the history of social media.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Welcome to the Interface, the show that explores how tech is rewiring your week and your world.

[Alan Davis]

Coming up next. In our latest episode, we look at the secret meetings at the world's biggest AI summit, the truth about the mystery of a brain melting weapon, and the lawsuit that could shift the future of social Media. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcast.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Let's go on to the Candace Owens and the Macron's case Reminder. The Macrons, that's the French first family, are suing right wing influencer Candace Owens for defamation. She has repeatedly claimed that Brigitte Macron was born male and transitioned to a woman in her 30s. In fact, she's regularly repeated the claims on her podcast and her many social media channels. And in March 2024 she stated that she would stake her, quote, entire professional reputation on her belief that Mrs. Macron is in fact a man. That's a direct quote. The Macron say this is a far fetched fiction. They have repeatedly denied everything Candace has said. If you want more on that, please go and listen to the full episode we did with the Macron's lawyers where they answer all of our questions head on. But we have a really good question from Kate from Australia. Hi Anushka. Love the party. Being with you guys from the beginning. I had a question about the Macron situation. I don't really understand what the big deal is if the allegations were true. So what if she used to be a man? Isn't that her decision? If the uproar is over the fact that it was hidden from the French people, I kind of think that's the last thing that people should be worried about. I am sure politicians hide much worse things. Anyways, if you have any further clarification on this, I'd love to hear it. Keep doing the amazing and entertaining work you're doing. Big love from Australia, Brilliant question. Had this question so many times. What is inherently defamatory about saying that somebody is trans? Like straight off the bat as an answer, the the allegations that Candace has made are very, very layered. It's not just saying that she transitioned, it's saying that she stole somebody else's identity. It's saying that they're lying to the French people. If you pull directly from the Macron's complaints, you can see some of the other stuff that Candace has said. It says, quote, she then escalated her rhetoric, falsely alleging that the Macrons are part of a very small group of elite oligarchs who routinely practice homosexuality and pedophilia, believe in baphomet, that's a satanic deity, and worship a transgender deity that controls the world. This is yet another baseless, inherently implausible claim, obviously, as well. Practicing. Practicing. Which is a weird way to put it, practicing homosexuality isn't defamatory either. But we can hear some of the other stuff that's in there. Incest. She has claimed that. That potentially Brigitte and Emmanuel are actually related. There's a whole list of stuff. And the complaint is very, very long. And it really goes through every single thing that she said and why they're filing for defamation. My question to you, Sean, is if she hadn't made any of those other allegations and she just said, I think Brigitte Macron was born a man and transitioned in her 30s, would they still be able to file a defamation lawsuit?

[Sean Kent]

Absolutely. And I love that interest in what Kate is focused on because it does make a lot of sense. And people need to understand what does. They say, one man's trash is another man's treasure. The case is not about what the public believes happened at this point in time to Bridget. It's how she feels that she was defamed, that she feels what somebody has said about her, that she feels that somebody has said something that has put her in a defamatory light. The reason why I enjoy this inquiry so much, you see, I'm staying away from the word question. The reason that I enjoy this inquiry so incredibly much is times have changed. And so what she's saying has so many cool layers to it, because it's. The world does not view the trans public the way that they used to, that it is not necessarily an insult that people are starting to understand significantly more. And so that is something that she still can say she's defamed. But somebody on the jury could say, I don't think that is a defamatory contact, to simply that say somebody is trans. Trans. But their lawsuit doesn't stop there. As you said, it's got so many levels of the things that they have done that put her in a negative light, and she believes it has defamed her. But you're still gonna have to prove the actual Malice stand.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Yes. So it still has to prove actual malice that Candice said something, she needs to be false and said it anyway, or presented something as the truth while recklessly disregarding that it might be false. But I just want to add on to what you were saying about Brigitte will have to prove how it's damaged her. And I just want to add to that about cognizable damages. You have to prove your damages in a civil lawsuit. And when we spoke to Tom Clare, who is the Macron's lawyer, who's filed the lawsuit in Delaware against Candace Owens, he made really clear what Brigitte and Emmanuel have said their damages are. In the wake of everything Candace has said about Brigitte Macron, they get asked

[Sean Kent]

about this at events. I mean, imagine going to an event and having a friend or a colleague or somebody you're just meeting for the first, you know, want to ask you about this, or even somebody who doesn't say something to you about it. Right. You walk into a room of a hundred people and you have to know that there are people in that room that are wondering, is this true?

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

And there's another layer onto that because they say in the complaints, defendants have subjected the Macrons to a campaign of global humiliation, turning their lives into fodder for profit driven lies. So they're saying there's damages there with Brigitte because she's been on a global humiliation tour that's been part of her damages. But on top of that, they say, you know, Candace has monetized this content. She's on multiple different platforms where you can monetize content. And she was also selling merchandise. She was selling T shirts that said Times man of the Year with Brigitte's face on the front. So there's an extra layer there. I mean, they don't. I think I'm correct in saying this, Sean. They don't have to prove motive for what Candace was doing, went to prove actual malice. But they have included that extra layer. So when they're telling, well, this is what they told me in the interview, and when they're explaining to the jury what was going on, they will not only say what Candace has done, but why she's done it.

[Sean Kent]

You're spot on.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Okay, so our next question is from Emily in the uk she didn't want to send a voice note, so I'll read it out. She says, you talk about the defense of being a bad journalist as a defense against defamation. Is there a legal definition of a journalist or can anybody use this? I think this is a Fantastic question, Sean. Can you just unpack what she means when we say we've talked about the defense of being like a shoddy journalist

[Sean Kent]

before New York Times vs. Sullivan, even though it says New York Times vs. Sullivan is actually a case in Alabama. It happened in the 1960s. It was dealing with everything that was going on with race issues in America. A gentleman by the name of Sullivan was a commissioner down in Alabama. He was trying to, you know, this is when we're talking about busing schools and things are going on and segregation and things that were end up happening. Well, there was an editorial or an article written about what was happening in Alabama, what was happening with Mr. Sullivan. And the New York Times put several inaccuracies, things that were just wrong inside of this article. Okay. They just put just some stuff that was just wrong. Well, Mr. Sullivan sued the New York Times. He got like a fifty thousand dollar verdict, fifty thousand five hundred something. He got a big verdict against him. They were all a half happy. Well, New York Times appealed this all the way up to the Supreme Court. And our Supreme Court unanimously said journalists can make mistakes, they can make innocent mistakes if they're in the effort of trying to provide the truth. And they came up with an actual malice standard because they didn't want to chill the right of a journalist to try to report on things. They wanted to give journalists a good faith. Attaboy, you're trying to do the right thing. So they created an actual malice standard. They said if a journalist is actively trying to hurt somebody, if a person is actively trying to hurt someone who is a public figure, then you can file your lawsuit, then you can go after them. They made that an element of something that needed to be proven. So what our Supreme Court in the United States has basically said is journalists have a right of journalist freedom because they have to dig, they have to try. They have to try to get that story so that the public can hear it. But every now and then you do have to answer your question. You do have a crappy journalist who doesn't do their homework, doesn't do it the right way, doesn't do things. Should they be sued necessarily? No. But they still can get fired. They still can be blackballed. They can still say you're a bad journalist. But getting to the level that you should be sued and cost money, you have to crush that threshold that what you are doing is done with actual malice. To go back to the Candace issue, what they're having to prove in that case is Candace may be and I'm saying may, may be a bad person, she may be a crappy journalist, but the McCrones are going to have to prove that the stuff that she put out was with actual malice to destroy them. It's not stuff that she reasonably believed to be true and not just a good faith mistake.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

But so if she says, I genuinely believe this, from the digging, from the interviews I've conducted, from the research I've read, this was a genuine belief. And as a journalist, I am protected, I think, you know, from Emily's question, it's who gets that protection as a journalist? Because who's a journalist? Is there a legal definition of a journalist in the US there's really not.

[Sean Kent]

Okay, like we all talk about, like there's not a legal definition of a journalist because for Christ's sakes, it's involving everybody on social media. If you go on your TikTok right now and everybody is giving a story, everybody is talking about things, everybody is saying things. So there's not a legal definition of a journalist.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Well, I wonder if there will be some sort of enshrined or entrenched definition of a journalist at some point. Because when we were at the Diddy. Well, I'm assuming so because we are entering a world of news fluencers and they don't ring fence for credentialed media in the U.S. and I've told you a million times, when we were at the Diddy trial, it was like there was the old guard, traditional media, and then there was the new kind of influencer journalists who were doing their own reporting unchecked. And that's only going to continue to grow because it grows profit as well.

[Sean Kent]

So don't Forget we talked two weeks ago about a YouTuber was sued by Nicki Minaj who was offering herself as a journalist. And Nicki Minaj won. So even though I'm saying people are just on social media, public white figures can still file lawsuits against YouTubers because remember, defamation isn't limited to just being a journalist. Now what we talk about is the reason that journalists are the ones who are usually sued is they have the larger platforms, they get out to more individuals, and they usually have more money backing them. And so when we're filing lawsuits, I'm not going to file a lawsuit against John Jackson, living in Minot, North Dakota, who lives in his mom's basement, who said something nasty about Donald Trump. Trump's not filing a lawsuit on defamation to get him to get $1.35. Now, if John Jackson works for the Wall Street Journal and wrote a defamatory article about Donald Trump. Then he's like, oh, there's money there. That's who I'm going to file the lawsuit against. So don't think the journalist title is what causes the bar for being sued. It's talking too much and utilizing that actual malice standard against a public figure.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Well, that was a thoroughly enjoyable episode. I love these questions. If we didn't get around to your question.

[Sean Kent]

I do like these questions.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Yeah, they' if we didn't get around to your question this week, please keep sending them in because we'll do more of these where we scoop up all of the questions into one episode. Sean, thank you so much for being a diva.

[Sean Kent]

I need that clip. I need that quote. I need to get a T shirt made that I am a fashion diva. And I do not find any assault to that. None whatsoever.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Yeah, much incoming. Well, thanks so much for spending some time with me today and answering those questions.

[Sean Kent]

Thank you for having me in this guy. I appreciate you guys.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

That was our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent from South Carolina. And that's it for this episode of Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anoushka Mutandadi. If you want to send in more questions, which we want, we really, really want them. They are fantastic. You can DM me on Instagram and TikTok, it's anoushkamd. And make sure you subscribe and turn on those push notifications so you never miss. Miss a thing.

[Alan Davis]

Hello, I'm Alan Davis and on BBC Radio 4, we're off into alternate realities mapped out by science. This is life without, where I pull one thread from the magnificent fabric of life and watch what unravels.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Scientists around the world would be crying themselves to sleep. A bunch of mammals would be worrying

[Sean Kent]

about about where their favorite snack was.

[Alan Davis]

And we bring it down to Earth.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

David Beckham. I can imagine him putting that on the socials. My bees of my girls have all disappeared.

[Alan Davis]

Sometimes we patch it up and crack on. We will survive.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

We will survive.

[Lola (Listener)]

Humans are ingenious.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

That is our hallmark property.

[Alan Davis]

We should prize above everything else. But sometimes it's bigger than us. Join me to find out just how far the unraveling can go. Subscribe to Life without on BBC Sounds.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

What they are ultimately trying to create is going to replace humans.

[Sean Kent]

What it's doing is parboiling the inside of your brain.

[Alan Davis]

This could be a turning point in the history of social media.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Welcome to the Interface, the show that explores how tech is rewiring your week and your world.

[Alan Davis]

Coming up next. In our latest episode, we look at the secret meetings at the world's biggest AI summit, the truth about the mystery of a brain melting weapon, and the lawsuit that could shift the future of social Media. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Ad Voiceover]

When it's time to scale your business, it's time for Shopify. Get everything you need to grow the way you want.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Like all the way.

[Ad Voiceover]

Stack more sales with the best converting checkout on the planet. Track your cha chings from every channel right in one spot and turn real time reporting into big time opportunities. Take your business to a whole new level. Switch to Shopify. Start your free trial today.