The Jameela Jamil Texts Explained in the Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni Case

The release of newly unsealed court filings in the Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni case this week continues to widen the fallout, pulling more public figures into an already heated celebrity dispute. Jameela Jamil has become the latest target, with parts of the media questioning her feminist credibility based on both private messages and her engagement with parody content.

Those reactions stem from August 2024, when Jamil commented on Blake Lively’s public-facing promotion of the film. At that time, criticism of Blake Lively’s handling of the domestic violence theme was already widespread, and no allegations against Justin Baldoni had entered the public record. Recasting those private exchanges as proof of foreknowledge distorts the timeline. It assigns Jamil responsibility for information that did not yet exist, while advancing a narrative that depends on ignoring when the messages were written and what prompted them.

What the Unsealed Texts Actually Show

The court documents show private text messages exchanged between Jameela Jamil and Jennifer Abel, a publicist who was working with Justin Baldoni at the time. Abel’s inclusion in the filings is procedural rather than sensational. As Baldoni’s publicist, her communications were preserved and produced during discovery, pulling in private reactions from people who were commenting on the unfolding public discourse rather than directing it.

Those messages focus on Blake Lively’s promotional approach to It Ends With Us, which had already become a flashpoint by August 2024. During the press run, many fans of Colleen Hoover’s novel and viewers familiar with the story’s domestic violence themes criticised Blake Lively for framing the film in a tone that felt closer to a glossy romcom than a story rooted in abuse and survival. Interviews leaned heavily on fashion, humour, and lighthearted marketing language, including the much-criticised “grab your friends, wear your florals” line, which struck many audiences as tone deaf due to the serious subject matter.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by It Ends With Us (@itendswithusmovie)

That criticism played out in real time across social media, book forums, and film commentary spaces, where viewers argued that the press strategy flattened the seriousness of the story and missed an opportunity to clearly advocate for domestic violence awareness. It is within that climate that Jamil’s messages appear. Her reactions address what was publicly visible and actively debated, not allegations or behind-the-scenes claims that would only surface much later.

Nothing in the texts suggests planning, coordination, or attempts to influence public messaging. They capture the same type of venting that routinely occurs in group chats when a public figure appears to mishandle a sensitive issue in full view of the public. Reading those exchanges as evidence of malice or foreknowledge requires removing them from the context that gave rise to them.

The Double Standard Shaping the Reaction

In headlines driven by TMZ and echoed by Page Six, editors strip Jameela Jamil’s private messages of timeline and circumstance, then repackage them with loaded terms like “branded,” “villain,” and “suicide bomber,” treating them as public declarations rather than fragments disclosed through discovery. The coverage recasts what should register as a momentary private reaction into a moral indictment, converting informal language into supposed proof of character.

Jameela Jamil, a woman of colour whose public work centres on advocacy and accountability, receives far less tolerance for emotional response or imperfect language. Commentators read her words in the most literal and punitive way, stripping British vernacular of cultural context and treating it as proof of moral failure. They recast frustration as hypocrisy, as though being a feminist prohibits criticism or emotional candour altogether.

Some commentators go further and recast Jamil’s private reactions as a betrayal. They apply a standard of perfection rather than consistency, demanding exemplary behaviour at all times, even in conversations never intended for public view. They do not impose that expectation evenly. When private messages between Taylor Swift and Blake Lively surfaced, Swift’s reference to Justin Baldoni as a “bitch” appeared alongside texts showing the pair strategising over creative control of the film, yet coverage framed the language as casual venting instead of treating it as a character judgment.

However, commentators judge a woman of colour by a harsher moral yardstick, while they meet similar behaviour elsewhere with understanding and indulgence.

Final Thoughts

The wider problem lies in how this material reached the public in the first place. These messages were disclosed as part of a legal process intended to examine allegations of sexual harassment and related workplace misconduct claims. Instead, the focus has shifted toward combing through unrelated private conversations in search of scandal, transforming a serious legal dispute into something closer to a tabloid spectacle. The result resembles less a good-faith examination of facts and more a selective exposure exercise, where private speech is mined for drama and repurposed as punishment.

By leaning into that framing, outlets like TMZ and Page Six sidestep the harder question of why they contextualise similar behaviour for some women while weaponising it against others. Their coverage pulls readers into a familiar cycle of judgment, rewarding outrage while masking how easily editors collapse timelines and transform private conversations into public theater.

Defending Jameela Jamil does not require sanitising her language or dismissing discomfort with it. It requires honesty about timing, proportion, and precedent. Private speech made without hindsight should not be judged as though it followed a full public record. Feminism that allows complexity for some women while denying it to others is not principled. It is selective.

This episode says less about Jamil’s values than it does about how quickly media narratives harden when a familiar target appears. Context does not excuse everything, but it does explain a great deal. Ignoring it serves outrage, not accountability.