Posted on 06/07/2023 3:04:42 PM PDT by dynachrome
Fox News Wednesday notified Tucker Carlson's lawyers that the former prime-time anchor violated his contract with the network when he launched his own Twitter show on Tuesday, according to a copy of a letter obtained by Axios.
Why it matters: A breach of contract claim sets Fox News up to explore potential legal action against Carlson, a move that would intensify the already thorny public battle between the two parties.
Carlson’s lawyers told Axios that any legal action by Fox would violate his First Amendment rights.
“Fox defends its very existence on freedom of speech grounds. Now they want to take Tucker Carlson’s right to speak freely away from him because he took to social media to share his thoughts on current events," said Carlson's lawyer, Bryan Freedman, in a statement to Axios.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Especially since it was only 10 minutes or so.
+1
Non Compete clauses are more and more frequently found to be illegal.
But not always.
We need to see the contract — which would have to be revealed if Fox is going to maintain a lawsuit. Some non-compete clauses are unenforceable. Would this contract prevent competition absolutely or just cause Tucker to forfeit the remainder of his compensations from Fox? What is defined as a breach? Is any public statement by Tucker a breach, or only if he goes on certain media?
I think that as long as Carlson isn’t making money off his broadcast, he has an absolute first amendment right to speak out.
If he is making money, then I would want to see the contract.
Almost 93 million at last check. That’s a lot of “engagement.”
Isn’t Hannity taking that slot? He should draw them in.
My position is that Tucker can go work for whomever else he wants, if he is willing to forego the bonuses that written in the contract for him to abide by the non-competitor clause.
It’s an arguement betweeen two parties. It is correct that Fox did not count for Twitter, so Tucker will argue that Twitter does not break the non-competitor clause. Fox may say that Twitter wasn’t a competitor at the time the contract was signed, but it is now so the spirit of contract should still be binding.
It will be interesting how the courts rule.
Except now these corporations are coordinating with the government as a way to control speech.
Here is where the leaks came from — through a couple of levels of “plausible deniability.”
https://www.gawker.com/5022476/irena-briganti-the-most-vindictive-flack-in-the-media-world
Fox is embarrassing itself even more by admitting through this sour grapes accusation against Tucker that they are in a deep funk over having agreed to a sly unwritten backroom deal with Dominion to get rid of Tucker.
At least TheBlaze does a TV show (on Pluto) AND streams it on their sit (which is much like Fox Nation, only MUCH better.) Then the best stuff goes up on their Youtube page a little after it airs.
This is how Fox would do things if they were smart — which they are not.
But as I understand it, he was not actually terminated. They’re still paying him, just not putting him on the air.
Seems to be true, but even that can be a breach and a termination in effect. Payment is not the only metric of contractual employment.
The onday when he was let go, he had two stories in teh works that Fox didn’t like:
1. He was going to use the J6 video to undermine Ray Epps’s interview on 60 Minutes the prior evening
2. He was planning to re-air some video of himself going after Sidney Powell, demanding evidence and comlaining that she hadn’t produced any.
Neither of those stories is acceptable to teh Establishment.
“If you monetize your unalienable rights, you lose them?”
No, if he monetizes his speech, then it might violate the contract that he voluntarily signed which could cause him monetary liability.
Just because you have a right doesn’t mean you can’t exercise it without incurring liability.
When heh first joined Fox, putting your program on Twitter wasn’t considered a realistic idea. Now it is.
I know. That will likely form the crux of the arguments. Tucker will argue that going on Twitter does not violate the contract and Fox will argue that it does. A judge will then sort it out.
“Why, against DIRECT ORDERS, he told…. He told the.. TRUTH!…”
Here is the exception...
...Bring it on!
And, confidential to Tucker...
...be and stay strong, lawyers just love to bluff.
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.