-We move now to Nevada's reporter shield law, which protects journalists from disclosing their sources.

It's what celebrity blogger and Las Vegas resident Perez Hilton cited when fighting a subpoena from actress Blake Lively, who claimed that Perez had colluded with actor Justin Baldoni to launch a smear campaign against her.

Lively has since withdrawn her subpoena.

And Perez, whose real name is Mario Lavandeira, Jr., thinks he knows why.

And he joins us now.

Perez Hilton, welcome to Nevada Week.

-Thank you.

I thought I'd dress up for the occasion.

-You look lovely.

I did not know you were a Golden Knights fan.

(Perez Hilton) I mean, who isn't in Vegas?

-If you move here, you have to, because you're here about, what, you've been here two years?

-Almost three years total, and we love going to the games, taking my kids.

It's sports, but it's also entertainment.

Vegas does hockey and everything next-level.

-They need to take that sound bite from you and air it.

If you say it's entertainment, it is.

They put a lot into it.

Anyhow, back to this.

Okay, why do you think that Blake Lively and her team of attorneys withdrew that subpoena?

-Well, I'm going to try to make this as simplified as possible.

I was subpoenaed in July.

And for over two months, I was handling it all by myself.

And then last week, a little over seven days ago, the ACLU of Nevada agreed to represent me.

-You reached out to them?

-No.

It happened so serendipitously.

God, the universe, a kind person was looking after me.

I did two in-person hearings--I think you went to one of them--by myself.

That first one that you were at, it was me versus three lawyers.

I was representing myself pro se, as they say, because I knew, as a journalist, what was being asked of me was wrong.

I knew it was right to fight.

However, I also knew that my insurance for my job, I'm self employed, covers lawsuits.

It doesn't cover fighting a subpoena.

And if I would have paid out of pocket to fight this subpoena, given that it had a drama in two different courts in two different states that spanned three months--correct, yes, New York City and here in Vegas--it would have probably cost me by the end of it over $75,000.

-And that would be costs in lost time because you were representing yourself?

-Both.

$75,000 in legal bills and then also my time.

So I said, you know what?

I know it won't be easy, but I think I can do it.

And then it got to a point where it just became bigger than me.

And what the judge here in Las Vegas was asking of me, Prepare this privilege log and name your sources and I will look at it and determine if it's privileged or not.

It didn't sit right with me, because that's the whole point of what I was trying to fight, to protect those names.

So this lawyer, I got to give her a shout-out.

Her name is Dawn, D-A-W-N, Thoman, T-H-O-M-A-N.

She is a local attorney here who works pro bono representing children in need in Vegas.

And the judge at the second hearing said: I need you to reach out to some forensic data experts and get quotes; and if Ms.

Lively wants this information, she will pay for that, because the privilege log that you put together was not detailed enough.

You need to compile all this information and then get me also quotes from a paralegal, and the paralegal will help you put it together.

And I left that second hearing so overwhelmed, and this lawyer, Dawn, came to me and said, Hey, if you need any recommendations for forensic experts, let me know.

-And that would be to comb through your cell phone-- -Laptop, my devices, my cloud, everything.

So I emailed her, because I don't know any forensic experts here in Vegas.

And she sent me some names.

And then the day after that, I was in the local morning news and also I made a video for YouTube.

And in both of those places, I said, I need help.

Please, if any lawyer--and I get it--if any lawyer just wants the publicity, please, I need pro bono help.

-You get that?

-Yeah.

So the next day, Dawn said, Hey, I reached out to my friend at the ACLU of Nevada, and he wants to talk to you.

And I'm like, that's so amazing and kind.

And then I met with Athar and Chris and the team at the ACLU of Nevada.

They agreed to represent me.

They call Blake Lively's lawyers.

They say to them almost immediately, We're going to withdraw the subpoena.

The next day in the morning, they go to court, they withdraw the subpoena.

I'm pretty confident with every fiber in my being that if the ACLU of Nevada had not stepped in and the optics of that, Blake Lively versus the ACLU, she would still be pursuing this subpoena against me.

-I did talk to Athar myself.

He said he cannot speculate on why they withdrew the subpoena, but he said that if they continue to come after you in the future, he will be representing you.

-So kind.

I'm just so relieved, too, because there is a possibility that they might issue another subpoena or they might want to depose me.

And to know-- -Yeah.

And in that request to withdraw it, her attorneys listed that they already had enough documentation from other defendants, and so it made it unnecessary to keep pulling information from you.

-Well, I argued that myself.

I said that in my filings and in court.

Your Honor, everything that is being asked of me, Ms.

Lively can get from the parties directly apart of this litigation.

-Okay.

But what's the likelihood then that in that documentation they're going to find anything that connects you to colluding with Justin Baldoni?

-Zero.

Was I in communication with sources?

Absolutely.

Just like People Magazine has sources and TMZ has sources.

But as I've said repeatedly, no one ever told me to write anything negative about Blake Lively.

No one paid me.

There's no contract.

No one promised me discounts or favors.

She does not want to believe this, but I'm only speaking for myself.

My coverage, which began, actually, after reading the New York Times article and her California Civil Rights Department complaint and then the subsequent lawsuit filed on New Year's Eve of December of last year, I'll never forget it.

Initially when I read all of that, I believed her and publicly supported her.

And then I changed my mind after I read all of the receipts, proof, timeline that Justin Baldoni came with.

And I'm allowed to change my mind.

But she does not think it's organic.

She's convinced it's astroturfing, and it was this orchestrated, untraceable smear campaign.

-Had she not withdrawn that subpoena, you would be fighting, first off, to make sure that this is heard in Nevada because of the reporter shield law that I mentioned, one of the toughest in the country and protects you from having to-- -Absolute protection.

- --reveal your sources who could be retaliated against.

-Yes.

Unfortunately, the judge in the second hearing said that the Nevada shield law would not apply here, which confused me.

And that's one of the other reasons.

In addition to feeling unease at the judge saying, I need to know the names-- -Did that judge say why it wouldn't?

-I asked him.

I said-- He would not explain to me why, so I filed the motion to ask the Court to put it in writing.

-Because Blake Lively's team said that that wouldn't apply, because she doesn't consider you a journalist.

She says you do not practice the-- -Also because she-- - --tenets of independent journalism.

-Correct, she argued that.

But also with regards to why the Nevada shield law should not apply, she said, well, because she has claims in various states, and her claims are bigger federal issues.

But as I told-- I'm in my Elle Woods era.

I studied and prepared and I know the law.

I know my filings inside and out.

What's so frustrating is Blake Lively repeatedly, as recently as last week, argued that California law should be applied in New York.

And New York is where the litigation is happening, where she sued her costar and director Justin Baldoni, and the judge in New York applied California law.

-Elle Woods is a reference to that character-- - Legally Blonde.

-She went to law school.

-Yes.

But the judge in Nevada did not want to apply Nevada law here.

That made no sense to me.

-How do you respond to her claims that you are not a journalist?

-She may not like the kind of reporter that I am, but the law does not discriminate.

The law does not make one reporter more valuable than the other.

The law, the Nevada shield law and the federal reporter's privilege protects the act of reporting.

And according to both state and federal law, this is what a journalist is: somebody who gathers information of public interest and shares it with the public.

By every conceivable measure, I am a journalist.

-Perez Hilton, thank you so much for joining Nevada Week.

-Thank you.