The Briefing Room
General Category => Sports/Entertainment/MSM/Social Media => Topic started by: American Girl on June 12, 2023, 01:48:02 pm
-
They fired him. Now they want to silence him.
When this all went down, many commented it was the end of Tucker.
I argued it was just the beginning of a revolution against a corrupt media.
All you "this is the end of Tucker" get to now choke on 100 million views and counting
https://www.rightjournalism.com/fox-news-sends-tucker-carlson-cease-and-desist-letter-as-his-twitter-videos-crash-100-million-views-his-attorney-responds-in-the-best-way-possible/
-
Can they hold him to a contract if they refuse to let him do what he's hired to do for flimsy reasons?
-
Can they hold him to a contract if they refuse to let him do what he's hired to do for flimsy reasons?
Generally, yes.
-
What if Tucker did the Twitter thing for free? Would the Fox contract still apply?
-
What if Tucker did the Twitter thing for free? Would the Fox contract still apply?
The contract would still be a valid contract, but one would have to parse its terms to see if Fox could prevent him from doing his thing for free. One would also have to consider the common law duties of loyalty and good faith that an employee owes to his employer.
-
Generally, yes.
I'd like him to take them to court just to see their reasoning. It certainly isn't because of lack of performance.
-
I'd like him to take them to court just to see their reasoning. It certainly isn't because of lack of performance.
Because he signed a contract with them that, most likely, gives them the right to decide what his duties are, or are not. It's highly unlikely (not unheard of, but unlikely) that his contract guarantees him a certain minimum amount of airtime, but if there's a clause that addresses what happens if they don't give him the minimum amount of guaranteed airtime (probably some provision that guarantees a certain amount of compensation, even if his airtime drops below the minimum required for general compensation purposes), then they can simply rely on that, continue to pay him, and there isn't much he can do about it, other than terminate the contract, in which case he would probably lose a significant amount of income.
-
Tucker Carlson's attorney responds defiantly after Fox reportedly sends cease-and-desist letter seeking to shut down Twitter show
..........Axios did not include the text of the cease-and-desist letter, saying that the letter has "NOT FOR PUBLICATION" in bold at the top.
Dhillon went on to explain that Fox News is "not a place" for her until the network "stops trying to silence Tucker." She added she has friends still under contract at Fox and that she feels for them.
"I am passionately committed to free speech and a free flow of information necessary for a free society," Dhillon said.
The popular liberty-minded lawyer was not done there, however. She urged Congress, influencers, and GOP officials to carefully consider decisions about appearing on the network she says has "caved into pressure to silence Tucker Carlson."..............
.....Do you really want to air your views on a network that spits on its viewers, leaks oppo on its own talent, and even threatens former talent for speaking, for free, on @Twitter?"
"You have free will!"
"What you are seeing on Fox today is a censored version of the news," Dhillon also said in the multi-part tweet thread...........
https://www.theblaze.com/news/harmeet-dhillon-urges-gop-reconsider-fox-news-appearances
-
Harmeet K. Dhillon
@pnjaban
My friend and client @TuckerCarlson will not be silenced — by the far left or by Fox News. Scoop: Fox sends Tucker Carlson cease-and-desist letter
Harmeet K. Dhillon
@pnjaban
For all the friends who have been asking “why don’t we see you on Fox anymore?” — This is why. I am passionately committed to free speech and a free flow of information necessary for a free society. Until Fox stops trying to silence Tucker, it’s not a place for me. And I feel for my friends working at the network which has clearly caved into pressure from some quarter to silence @TuckerCarlson. What you are seeing on Fox today is a censored version of the news. Keep that in mind as you make your viewing and your commenting choices.
7:27 AM · Jun 12, 2023
-
Because he signed a contract with them that, most likely, gives them the right to decide what his duties are, or are not. It's highly unlikely (not unheard of, but unlikely) that his contract guarantees him a certain minimum amount of airtime, but if there's a clause that addresses what happens if they don't give him the minimum amount of guaranteed airtime (probably some provision that guarantees a certain amount of compensation, even if his airtime drops below the minimum required for general compensation purposes), then they can simply rely on that, continue to pay him, and there isn't much he can do about it, other than terminate the contract, in which case he would probably lose a significant amount of income.
If it was done without recompense, I think that would be speech... contract be damned.
-
If it was done without recompense, I think that would be speech... contract be damned.
Not sure what you mean by that. Pretty sure, though, that Tucker was well-enough advised, and enough in demand to have bargaining power, that he is not going without recompense as far as Fox is concerned.
And if you mean doing his show for free - if he is still an employee of Fox, then he still owes them a duty of loyalty, and if his show - even if done for free - would cause harm to the employer's interests, then there may be a basis for enjoining his actions.
-
Not sure what you mean by that. Pretty sure, though, that Tucker was well-enough advised, and enough in demand to have bargaining power, that he is not going without recompense as far as Fox is concerned.
And if you mean doing his show for free - if he is still an employee of Fox, then he still owes them a duty of loyalty, and if his show - even if done for free - would cause harm to the employer's interests, then there may be a basis for enjoining his actions.
I don't know if he did it for free (and don't really care)... But at some point his natural right to free speech should enter the picture.
Not that it really matters here. Musk has been sniffing around him... Which is probably why he is on Twitter instead of any other venue... And Musk can eat Fox for breakfast.
-
I don't know if he did it for free (and don't really care)... But at some point his natural right to free speech should enter the picture.
Not that it really matters here. Musk has been sniffing around him... Which is probably why he is on Twitter instead of any other venue... And Musk can eat Fox for breakfast.
It all depends on whether he's still under contract and whether the contract covers it. There is nothing that per-se says one cannot agree with another private party to do, or not do, something that limits one's ability to engage in free speech. So, as a general proposition, if Fox wants to continue to pay him to be quiet, then they can do so unless he is willing to give up what is likely a very rich contract in order to engage in speech that breaches his contractual obligations.
-
It all depends on whether he's still under contract and whether the contract covers it. There is nothing that per-se says one cannot agree with another private party to do, or not do, something that limits one's ability to engage in free speech. So, as a general proposition, if Fox wants to continue to pay him to be quiet, then they can do so unless he is willing to give up what is likely a very rich contract in order to engage in speech that breaches his contractual obligations.
Well sorta... It all depends on who's got the best lawyers to argue your point...
Again, if Musk is around...
AND
If it only boils down to losing a lucrative contract... Well, just in views, he's going to gain hand over fist. And if Musk has offered to sweeten the pot... Internet is whole orders above cable. Ask Joe Rogan.
Don't really care. The thing that piques my interest is where Carlson's natural right to free speech kicks in.
If he has a natural right to say anything he wants to his grandma on Skype, how is that materially different than what he is doing on twitter (except recompense, for the argument)?
-
Well sorta... It all depends on who's got the best lawyers to argue your point...
Again, if Musk is around...
AND
If it only boils down to losing a lucrative contract... Well, just in views, he's going to gain hand over fist. And if Musk has offered to sweeten the pot... Internet is whole orders above cable. Ask Joe Rogan.
Don't really care. The thing that piques my interest is where Carlson's natural right to free speech kicks in.
If he has a natural right to say anything he wants to his grandma on Skype, how is that materially different than what he is doing on twitter (except recompense, for the argument)?
One can contractually agree with another private party to restrictions on one's freedom of speech that could not be imposed by the government - the First Amendment only binds the government and its agents - and therefore, if his contract allows Fox to demand that he cease and desist, then whatever his "natural" right to freedom of speech might be, he knowingly and voluntarily signed it away.
-
One can contractually agree with another private party to restrictions on one's freedom of speech that could not be imposed by the government - the First Amendment only binds the government and its agents - and therefore, if his contract allows Fox to demand that he cease and desist, then whatever his "natural" right to freedom of speech might be, he knowingly and voluntarily signed it away.
I see that, and understand - But in the end our rights exist 'as endowed by our Creator... Inalienable...' That declares a court above the courts of Men.
If they are in fact inalienable, appealing to a court above the courts of Men, then there's a line somewhere where any contract is rendered moot.
-
Even if Fox wins, Carlson is free to do whatever, albeit after the 24 election.
-
I see that, and understand - But in the end our rights exist 'as endowed by our Creator... Inalienable...' That declares a court above the courts of Men.
If they are in fact inalienable, appealing to a court above the courts of Men, then there's a line somewhere where any contract is rendered moot.
Then Tucker is welcome to appeal to that court; however, he will still have to abide by his contractual obligations as construed in the here and now.