Posted on 06/12/2023 10:01:48 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Tucker Carlson published two video tweets that, combined, garnered over 170 million views, far exceeding his Fox News audience. Fox News has taken notice of these videos and has sent a “cease and desist” letter to Tucker. I haven’t seen Tucker’s contract with Fox or the “cease and desist” letter, but my lawyer’s instinct is that Fox does not have a strong case.
Axios first reported news about the letter:
Fox News has sent a cease-and-desist letter to Tucker Carlson as he ramps up a competing series on Twitter that drew a combined 169 million views for its first two episodes, Axios has learned.
Why it matters: The contract battle between Fox and its former top host — who was taken off the air in April, after the network's historic Dominion settlement — has mighty repercussions for the conservative media ecosystem.
- With "Tucker on Twitter," Carlson and his growing production team are working to elevate Elon Musk's social media site as a news platform.
Details: The cease-and-desist letter has "NOT FOR PUBLICATION" in bold at the top. [Note: This means that Axios has seen the letter.]
What's happening: Fox is continuing to pay Carlson, and maintains that his contract keeps his content exclusive to Fox through Dec. 31, 2024.
- Carlson is making a First Amendment argument for posting on Twitter, and asserts that Fox has committed material breaches of his contract.
Harmeet Dillon, who has often appeared on Tucker’s Fox News show, and who currently represents Tucker, is unimpressed:
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 https://t.co/1vUCMoQXOa — Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) June 12, 2023
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
What the contract also includes is an “implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute explained that the
Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (often simplified to good faith) is a rule used by most courts in the United States that requires every party in a contract to implement the agreement as intended, not using means to undercut the purpose of the transaction. The rule applies in the performance of a contract, not to the negotiation of the contract, and the rule applies to generally any contract automatically without being stated in the agreement.
But it’s not clear whether
(a) Tucker is accepting those payments,
(b) rejecting them, or
(c) placing them in an escrow account pending the resolution of his dispute with Fox.
If Tucker is accepting the payments, he should stop doing so.
Carlson has the no. 1 lawyer for this area.
I don’t see how Fox can enforce it.
It’s really strange that a news organization would try so hard to make sure that their top journalist will be unable to report the news either as a Fox employee or as a private citizen. Fox just wants this guy to be shut up. They don’t want non-narrative news to get out.
Biden said he will ignore the results of the Supreme Court re student aid funding. So, if biden does not have to obey the law why should Tucker have to? Tucker should do as he pleases. They fired him-contract over.
I feel as if similar cases have come up before and the court sides with the “talent” over the “big corporation” trying to silence them, though I can’t remember off the top of my head.
Who cares?
Tucker turned against us, made his deal with the devil now he, Fox, Murdoch, Dominion can all rot in hell.
RE: It’s really strange that a news organization would try so hard to make sure that their top journalist will be unable to report the news either as a Fox employee or as a private citizen. Fox just wants this guy to be shut up.
It doesn’t appear that Carlson is making any money expressing his views on Twitter. The content is not broadcast in his old timeslot. Both videos were posted at 6 p.m., not 8 p.m., where a rotating cast fills in for the missing Carlson. Precisely what is Fox’s objection to Carlson airing his opinion on a platform specifically designed for individuals to do just that?
Despite being the major right-leaning cable outlet, Fox is still part of the legacy media whose audience is declining rapidly. If Fox takes formal legal action, the motivation may become more apparent. Because it doesn’t seem as if the rancorous back and forth is keeping Carlson out of the public discourse.
Actually I think the receiving of payments is not relevant to the legal issue.
No contract can violate the law, Tucker is making a first amendment case which would put the contract at odds with the law of land. As long as Tucker is not providing content with a competitor the contract has no impact.
Try as they want Faux News can not use a contract to silence speech. This would be akin to using a contract to circumvent the use of a bond servant which the constitution specifically prohibits.
Yes some contracts add provisions which if actually enforced would violate the law but those for the most part always end up unenforceable and nullified when challenged. Faux news know this, they are raging at their impotence right now.
If they (faux news) really believed they had a case they would stop paying him immediately and have already filed the case.
I remember when Larry Lujack, Superjock, was at WCFL and they dropped their top 40 format in favor of “beautiful music”. They thought he would say screw that, I’m not gonna play Mantovani all day long and bail on his contract. But the charming and delightful Uncle Lar diligently fulfilled the terms of the contract, collecting a big money paycheck from the no-longer-super CFL.
Apparently,they didn’t fire him, just cancelled his show.
Doesn’t that make you want to start tuning in to fox again?
Losers
I look at it a little differently, Tucker out on Twitter is a branding loss for Fox and they are in rehab mode currently, but trying to silence him isn’t going to solve it as their audience can see what’s going on.
Probably doesn’t have that second clause. Probably it’s more.
Tucker will provide content to Fox
Fox will do what they want with that content, including throwing it away
Fox pays Tucker
Tucker makes no content elsewhere
Seems they need to clarify if he is fired or just on the bench. Are they still paying him on schedule? Is Tucker doing the broadcasts for free or is he being paid? Since he is labeling them as Tucker on Twitter, that seems more planned professional effort than a personal tweet or recording. I’m sure he’s got good attorneys helping him navigate all of this and wouldn’t set himself up on the wrong side of a lawsuit.
What? “Tucker turned against us”? Who is “us”? And what is this “deal with the devil” that you are so worked up over?
First amendment only applies to government. People who pay you to speak are free to not distribute you. And if you signed an exclusive contract with them you’re shut down. His best bet is getting them to end the contract. Non-compete clauses that take effect after contract are unenforceable, if they’re still paying him though he’s under contract, and that’s very enforceable.
“Tucker makes no content elsewhere” is to vague and to restrictive a limitation. As contractual language that would be unenforceable.
For example would that mean Tucker could not create a news element for an elementary school as an educational piece? Also, that language would run hard against the 1st amendment.
Apparently, by many in the know, Tucker’s contract also excluded any restrictions for him putting any content on Twitter.
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.