Flaawsome Talk with Kjersti Flaa - My lawsuit against Blake Lively !!

00:00:00.000 Should I sue Blake Lively? Do I have a better case than her? I actually think so.

00:00:10.380 Hi and welcome to Flossom Talk. I'm Tashdi Flohr, journalist, Hollywood truth teller and your voice

00:00:15.620 of reason in a town built on delusion. Happy holidays everyone. I'm in a holiday spirit today

00:00:22.420 wearing some sparkles. First I wanted to apologize for something I said yesterday in my episode.

00:00:28.480 I misspoke big time. I reported that it was Ellen Garofalo, Justin Baldoni's attorney,

00:00:37.780 who subpoenaed me and 107 content creators. That of course is false. It is Ezra Hudson and I kept

00:00:45.200 saying Ellen Garofalo instead of Ezra Hudson. I'm so so sorry and I did pin it in a comment and I did

00:00:52.020 put it in the description as well and I also did a community post about it. I hope everyone sees that

00:00:56.940 and again my deepest apologies for me speaking like that. That was awful. Anyway it's been a year

00:01:02.580 now since that article in the New York Times dropped and it's been a year since Blake Lively

00:01:06.960 filed her lawsuit against Justin Baldoni, Jamie Heath and the rest of the Wayfair parties. And now

00:01:12.160 after one year as you know we haven't seen any evidence yet. So that made me think, should I sue

00:01:19.820 Blake Lively? Do I have a better case against her than she has against the Wayfair parties? Let's look

00:01:27.600 into it. So as you know a little background here. This interview took place in 2016. I was going to

00:01:34.880 interview Blake Lively, Parker Posey and also Kristen Stewart for the movie Cafe Society in New York. I

00:01:43.280 went there being optimistic. I had my questions ready but nothing went as planned because of what

00:01:50.400 Blake Lively and her co-star did. So here is a snippet from what happened in the beginning of that

00:01:56.020 interview. First of all congrats on your little bump. Congrats on your little bump. Okay so I was not

00:02:05.620 pregnant here. There was no bump. My body was not a topic. Therefore this qualifies as fat shaming. She 1.00

00:02:14.280 was drawing attention to parts of my body. Body shaming. This is a public comment on my body and my

00:02:21.820 appearance. And reproductive shaming. She was implying that I was pregnant without any grounds to do so. 0.98

00:02:29.960 And critically as well the context here. She was only saying this out of spite. It was meant as

00:02:37.540 retaliatory. And now we have to add group mockery. Because Blake Lively was not there by herself.

00:02:44.000 She was paired up with another actress, Parker Posey. The interaction then shifted from conversation

00:02:51.460 to being entertainment on my expense. Due to this shared mockery, this qualifies as coordinated

00:02:59.320 conduct. And this can be seen as a pattern. I'll get back to that. After the comment on the bump,

00:03:07.080 this happened. What about my bump? You've got two nice ones. And these, they are kind of bumps aren't

00:03:16.740 they? No, not bumps. The lovely lady lumps. Check it out. Thank you. Thank you. The two women here were 1.00

00:03:24.060 pointing at their breasts. They gestured physically towards their own breasts. And they did that in 0.61

00:03:31.900 front of me during my interview. This introduces a second category of harm. Sexualized conduct in a

00:03:39.120 professional setting. It doesn't matter if they were referring to themselves and their own bodies. Because

00:03:44.980 under modern standards, sexualization does not require touching. And it doesn't require targeting.

00:03:53.200 it does not require intent. It only requires sexual language, a work environment, and a participant who

00:04:01.120 does not consent. Me. Now we're getting to the third count here, which is hostile interview environment.

00:04:08.280 Once sexual humor enters the workplace, the environment changes. And in that moment, I did not

00:04:15.320 initiate sexual content. I did not consent to it. I could not exit that moment. I was stuck there. I had

00:04:23.960 to be there in the minutes that I was required to be there to interview them to do my job. And I was

00:04:30.200 outnumbered. There were two. I was one. That also means a power imbalance. They had all the power.

00:04:38.200 There were two people. They were the actresses. They were the ones who were in control. And I was just 0.99

00:04:45.800 a random journalist. This shows a toxic workplace and a hostile interview environment. Here we have

00:04:53.700 count four, which is sexism accusations as professional damage. So what happens next is that I asked the two

00:05:02.580 actresses about wearing those costumes in the movie because they were beautiful costumes. It was a period

00:05:09.940 piece. So the costumes were playing whatever their own part in the movie, if you want to put it like

00:05:16.260 that. And to ask a question like that cannot be seen in any way as inappropriate in this context.

00:05:24.420 Yeah, it's gorgeous. Did you guys love wearing those kind of clothes that you got to wear?

00:05:29.780 You're working in digital. Everyone wants to talk about the clothes, but I wonder if they would ask

00:05:32.900 the men about the clothes. I would. I love Jesse's suits. That's what I'm saying. His wardrobe was

00:05:40.300 beautiful. When I asked that question, she implied sexist intents. She questioned my professional 0.99

00:05:48.760 ethics because of that. And she reframed my journalism and my question as discrimination.

00:05:56.860 And in today's standards, you don't need to prove sexism. You only need to suggest it. This was on

00:06:02.940 camera. It was a professional interview and it had an audience there. And we have to add to that.

00:06:09.300 Instead of answering my question, Blake turned to Parker Posey and they started their own conversation

00:06:15.880 about the men's wardrobe in the movie and how much they appreciated what the men were wearing.

00:06:23.580 At that point, they ended my role as an interviewer. They ignored me throughout the entire, through the

00:06:29.880 rest of this interview. And under modern language, this can qualify as professional marginalization,

00:06:38.780 silencing, and exclusion from the interaction. And also remember, they kept talking about the

00:06:45.560 men's wardrobe. So that means that they think only asking about a women's wardrobe is sexist, but

00:06:51.480 celebrating men's clothing is fine. So to use Blake's own logic here, this can be seen as gender-based

00:07:00.140 gatekeeping, selective outrage, and arbitrary enforcement of moral rules. And once I asked this

00:07:08.620 question, I was completely sidelined from the rest of the interview. And I did not consent in being

00:07:15.080 silenced and sidelined. This can be seen as retaliatory disengagement and professional

00:07:21.340 invalidation. And also the rest of the people who were present, who were there for Blake Lively, who

00:07:28.780 also represented her, they didn't do anything about this situation. And they should be responsible for

00:07:35.460 maintaining a safe work environment as well. They should have intervened when this happened and stopped

00:07:41.300 it from escalating. They allowed this harm to happen to someone who's just trying to do their job. They allowed

00:07:47.400 this trauma to deepen for the plaintiff. It's not because they caused the behavior, obviously, but they failed

00:07:54.520 to stop it. And now we come to the economic coercion here. After this interview, this plaintiff, me, wanted to

00:08:02.760 quit her job. But she couldn't do that because I had to pay my bills. And that doesn't mean consent. It just 0.98

00:08:10.540 means that I had to survive. And survival in itself then becomes evidence of coercion. And then comes the

00:08:17.300 continuing course of conduct two years later. Because in 2018, I had to interview Blake Lively again.

00:08:26.080 I had no choice in this. I had to do this on behalf of the employer that I had in Norway, who asked me to

00:08:36.360 interview Blake Lively and Anna Kendrick for a simple favor. That means that I had to face this person again

00:08:44.700 without any safety net around me. And I have to relive all the trauma once again. So this memory in itself becomes

00:08:54.900 continuing conduct. And when I arrived at that interview, I also experienced through another

00:09:02.280 person who was there who just left the interview, who had a traumatic experience with Blake Lively and

00:09:08.560 Anna Kendrick, when he asked them a question about their characters and called them bitchy. And they

00:09:16.960 snapped. And he was reprimanded outside in the hallway because he had asked them this question.

00:09:24.180 That also brought back the trauma. Another example of toxic work environment. Even though this guy has

00:09:31.940 nothing to do with my case, I think I'm going to bring him in here anyways to just show a pattern.

00:09:39.820 Then we have a third party who enters this as well, who is my partner Magnus. Because Magnus

00:09:47.120 also was interviewing Blake Lively in 2018 for a simple favor.

00:09:52.880 Magnus, when I saw you earlier, you said, oh, let me get a shot. And I thought you meant of alcohol,

00:10:00.040 but you meant a photograph. So guess what? Time to put up. And what are we drinking?

00:10:06.380 Aviation American gin, who's owned by a very, very sexy man.

00:10:10.580 What happens under this interview also should be considered misconduct. During this interview that

00:10:16.780 lasted for four minutes, Blake Lively served Magnus, her husband, Ryan Reynolds gin, and she was

00:10:23.500 putting it in front of the camera so that Magnus, first of all, could never show this, could never

00:10:30.020 air this interview in Sweden, where you are not allowed to do any advertisements for alcohol.

00:10:36.560 Keep that in mind. Also, Magnus was served this alcohol at 10 a.m. in the morning. And because,

00:10:43.140 again, of the power imbalance here, he felt obliged to do as Blake Lively said. She was in control of

00:10:52.540 this situation. She pressured him as well to chug the entire glass of gin before he left the interview.

00:11:02.020 Just shoot it. Just shoot it. The interview would be so much more interesting. 0.99

00:11:06.640 Come on, down it. Here we go. Come on. Woo! Yeah! 1.00

00:11:12.520 This can be seen as alcohol-based pressure, unsafe workplace conduct, and also professional coercion.

00:11:21.980 She also used sexualized language, and this is a pattern. So during this four-minute interview, 0.84

00:11:30.300 Blake Lively used the word sexy five times.

00:11:34.960 It was owned by a very, very sexy man. And, you know, martinis are so sexy. But the glass and the

00:11:40.580 way you swirl it, and you dump it, and you twist the lemon, and it's just like, oh, it's so sexy.

00:11:46.260 So that's why. I think it's sexy.

00:11:48.880 Five times is definitely a pattern, and it made Magnus feel very uncomfortable. And Magnus was sitting

00:11:56.800 there during this time being pressured to drink gin. He was not asked beforehand if he had any issues

00:12:04.640 with alcohol. If he was an alcoholic, for example, then this would be a very dangerous environment for

00:12:12.500 him to step into. She also hijacked the entire interview by not talking about the subject matter 0.62

00:12:19.200 of the movie at all. She only spoke about alcohol and drinking alcohol, and how to produce Ryan

00:12:25.960 Reynolds' gin, and how she doesn't drink coffee, but she loves the way it's made.

00:12:32.040 But I drink it because I love the way they crush the beans, and they talk about it, and the story

00:12:35.700 of the, you know, the origin of them, and, you know, the milk, and the foaming, and all of that.

00:12:39.740 And the same thing with alcohol. When I hear about, you know, how this is distilled in Portland,

00:12:42.660 and how this, the reason this one is winning all the taste tests, actually, is because gin has a high

00:12:46.440 juniper content, which is why a lot of people don't like gin, because there's no juniper, and like,

00:12:49.420 all of that story, I just love. Because I like storytelling, it's what I do for a living.

00:12:53.280 And then, you know, martinis are so sexy, I mean, that's why they're in this movie.

00:12:56.460 She exploited this interview format, and made it into an advertisement for gin. It's also obvious

00:13:03.740 that she used flirtation in this interview, and therefore she interfered with my relationship.

00:13:10.460 And by modern standards, I am allowed to infer flirtation. I can speculate as much

00:13:16.420 as I want, and I say that this was boundary crossing, and I say this was a relationship

00:13:21.800 interference between me and Magnus, and it caused Magnus emotional distress. And his stress,

00:13:29.540 because of this, adding up to my stress from previous experiences working with Blake Lively,

00:13:36.300 amplified the trauma for both of us. And I experienced secondary trauma. Okay, so let's jump

00:13:42.740 forward to 2024 December, about a year ago, when New York Times published the article,

00:13:48.860 We Can Bury Anyone, and including me as part of their smear campaign, insinuating that I had been

00:13:57.140 paid by Baldoni's team to help smear Blake Lively. What followed that article for me personally was that

00:14:06.180 I was trolled online, and it was claimed that I was corrupt, and all this hatred that I experienced

00:14:13.420 online, and people contacting me, and threatening me, and threatening to even burn down my apartment

00:14:19.840 in New York, which I don't live anymore, but anyways, all of this can be considered a smear campaign.

00:14:26.500 An untraceable smear campaign, because I don't have the evidence yet to prove that Blake Lively

00:14:33.480 herself is behind that smear campaign, but I can say that she started it by putting my name in that

00:14:41.320 article in the New York Times. And also, other stories were spread about me online that weren't

00:14:46.380 true, and that is called astroturfing. All of this was just designed to look like natural backlash,

00:14:52.960 but it was definitely a smear campaign, an orchestrated smear campaign. And there's more evidence for this.

00:15:00.860 My Wikipedia page. It kept changing. It kept changing up to 50 to 100 times every day by people

00:15:09.140 or by editors who changed it back and forth, trying to make me look like a corrupt journalist.

00:15:15.960 They removed context of things and my achievements, and they also added negative framing to make me look

00:15:22.760 bad. So that makes Wikipedia a part of this smear ecosystem and a part of this bigger smear campaign.

00:15:31.240 To add to that, I was also subpoenaed, meaning that I, of course, experienced extra harm and financial

00:15:38.040 strain because I had to hire an attorney. Then I also had to focus on getting that tossed out. So I lost

00:15:45.220 other opportunities because of that. That means that my damages for this lawsuit could be enormous

00:15:51.540 because I lost so many opportunities from my other companies as well. I have redacted what those

00:15:58.600 companies and those businesses are here, but I did lose a lot of opportunities. I've also redacted

00:16:06.120 the amount here and I lost an opportunity. This is true from working with Mint Mobile who wanted to

00:16:12.680 sponsor my channel and I had to say no. So what do you think? Do I have a better case than Blake Lively?

00:16:18.200 And did I miss anything here? And also we have to keep in mind here, if they respond to my lawsuit,

00:16:26.300 I see that as a continuation of a smear campaign. If they come out and say anything, if there's any

00:16:33.520 statements by her legal team in any media outlets, that is another sign that this smear campaign is 1.00

00:16:41.340 still going on against me. And if I see any critics online posting anything on Reddit or TikTok or

00:16:48.520 Instagram or YouTube, I see that as astroturfing, which again proves that this smear campaign is still

00:16:56.520 ongoing. Also, I am a woman and Blake Lively supports women, so she has to support me here. So she can't

00:17:04.480 really defend herself against this because that means she doesn't support women and she's continuing the 1.00

00:17:10.820 smear campaign. Also, I'm going to add all the people who worked with Blake Lively on previous

00:17:16.580 projects that has had bad experiences with her to show a pattern here. Maybe I should call the New York

00:17:24.680 Times and get them to print this article because I have more evidence than Blake Lively showed to the

00:17:31.780 New York Times. I have video evidence. This case is based on facts and a lot of emotions because my

00:17:39.820 feelings matters and I can sue someone based on my feelings and based on what I felt in that moment

00:17:48.000 when it happened, although everyone else in the room saw that situation differently. That doesn't

00:17:54.880 matter because it's my feelings. Anyways, thanks for watching you guys. I hope you enjoyed this episode.

00:18:01.020 Please leave a comment below if I missed anything or if you think that I have a better case than Blake

00:18:06.680 Lively has and please subscribe if you haven't. Hit the notification bell so you don't miss an episode

00:18:12.740 of Flossum Talk and I'll see you soon. Bye!

Flaawsome Talk with Kjersti Flaa - December 24, 2025

My lawsuit against Blake Lively !!

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript