Posted on 04/28/2023 10:57:51 AM PDT by Red Badger
Except that stipulation flies in the face of the First Amendment.
Also, they hit first. They violated the contract. I don't know how much that will influence things, but I think Tucker holds the moral high ground.
A contract can’t stop him from speaking, but it can stop him from getting paid to work for a competitor.
So, Tucker is now a slave, and has not means to enact independent will?
Sometimes
He will negotiate terms acceptable to him.
Tucker will NOT be silenced through the 2024 elections.
He has to fix the contract
Tucker Carlson must go at any cost to complete their long haul. Here has been my feeling since Trump won. Hillary was just a step away from completing what Obama started, a total takedown of the Constitution, thus the USA, including the military. Had she won it would have been considered the will of the people. TRUMP stopped it in its tracks. They tried impeachment, lies, investigations and finally an overblown pandemic. They were willing to kill as many as possible and it is no mistake their target was seniors, to rid this country of as many conservative voters as possible. Those that didn’t die, were frozen with fear.
Enter Joe Biden and his gang of Marxists, through election fraud. They immediately went into action with executive orders, crippling economic regulations, opening the borders, etc. so much chaos that it would take decades to reverse, most of which will never be reversed and this is where we are.
He can just do interviews.
Interviewer: “Who does your hair?”
Tucker: Does a half hour monologue on any subject he wants.
Interviewer: Well they do a wonderful job. We’ve run out of time. Could you come back tomorrow to continue our in depth interview?
Sounds like it’s going to be a lawyer shoot out.
“These are real political and civil assaults on the Republic to control and influence not only elections but our very livelihoods.”
There’s that video of Schumer publicly telling Murdoch to get rid of Tucker. And he said it’s the politicians’ duty to control the media.
Based on what Megyn has said there are/were a lot of people at FNC who shared the opinion that the woman is a cunt.
.
The First Amendment only applies to governmental restrictions on free speech. The First Amendment has nothing to do with the enforceability of a noncompetition agreement between a private employer and employee.
I have no idea whether or not Fox violated their contract with Carlson and neither does anyone else who has not read it. I assume it is a complex agreement that was negotiated between fairly high-level law firms on each side.
Under most employment agreements, an employer can make an employee sit around and do nothing during the term of the agreement as long as the employer continues to pay the employee. I suspect (but do not know) that Tucker Carlson's employment agreement, like most media star's agreements, puts some limits on Fox's ability to assign Carlson to other duties or take him off the air entirely.
His new employer should buy his way out of the Fox contract. Pay the $30M and start talking again.
Interesting that he and Don Lemon hired the same lawyer for their exit negotiations. I think they’ll both find a way out.
I saw Megyn’s video about this on Twitter two or three days ago. (The same one that’s quoted in this article.)
Chris Cuomo hired that same lawyer. He managed to land at News Nation.
I’ve red in a couple of places that he doesn’t have a noncompete.
WABC-TV in New York had a LIFETIME non-compete written into the contract of one of its anchor. When they canned him, his broadcasting career ended.
Maybe Tucker should sign with a foreign outlet to get around the non-compete. (Technically, they aren’t competitors.)
(Then hey can make carriage deals here in the USA.)
Thanks for your reply and pointing that out.
I was reminded once before, and keep forgetting that demarcation.
It’s confusing. Thinking to a while back,I recall that a shop-owner was successfully sued (or fined) for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. I think I recall other instances when private parties were sued for civil rights violations by non- government entities- (it’s the aclu’s stock and trade) . I assumed the same thing here.
Assuming my recollection is accurate, why wouldn’t the same understanding apply?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.