Fox News says Tucker Carlson breached his contract

[MisterBeale]

I would assume that if he's receiving consideration for his Twitter posts, ie. money, then he would be in breach. If he's doing his Twitter posts as free speech and no consideration, then I imagine Fox can go do one. But this just all depends what's specifically written in the contract.

I concur, but many here don't.

They believe that because of his contract with Fox, consideration or not, Tucker, his face, and the contents of his head, are now the property of the Fox News Corp. until 2025. To these folks, in their minds, Tucker has lost his First Amendment rights, and the Thirteenth Amendment can be made obsolete by corporations as well.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Been there. Done that. You’re impervious to facts and logic. Try that.

Beyond being wrong almost constantly about pretty much everything, getting smacked down by half the board because of it, you HackAgain haven't demonstrated you possess any facts and/or logic in any meaningful capacity. Your only go-to is an affirmation to a political party. You call people stupid and run away when cornered. So, now it's your time to shine. Dazzle us.

 

[JimH52]

This is interesting.

So, we all know that the Murdoch's, Fox Corp. and Tucker had a falling out. Every pundit and their brother has had a theory as to why the most popular news commentary show was cancelled at the height of its popularity.

. . . and of course, Tucker is still under contract, so, technically, he can't go to work for anyone else. Yet.

So? Is Tucker, by making videos on twitter, just making personal content to espouse his views on public events? Or has he breached his contract and become a subcontracting, "employee," for twitter? Bringing in revenue for that platform?

Scoop: Fox News says Tucker Carlson breached his contract​

Scoop: Fox News says Tucker Carlson breached his contract

Fox lawyers notified the former host that his new Twitter show violates his old Fox contract.

www.axios.com

Is this a corporate, contractual issue, that has only to do with money and business?

Or is this a free speech issue, and a battle of the populists and a defense of liberty against the man?

Ahhhhh....who cares?

 

[BackAgain]

Beyond being wrong almost constantly about pretty much everything, getting smacked down by half the board because of it, you HackAgain haven't demonstrated you possess any facts and/or logic in any meaningful capacity. Your only go-to is an affirmation to a political party. You call people stupid and run away when cornered. So, now it's your time to shine. Dazzle us.

Your dishonest premise consigns your ungrammatical post to the toilet where it belongs.

Fumblin’ Dickweed is just lashing out because he hates being exposed as the dishonest hack he always is.

The irony of a pussy like you claiming that anybody runs away is hilarious.

 

[MisterBeale]

Beyond being wrong almost constantly about pretty much everything, getting smacked down by half the board because of it, you HackAgain haven't demonstrated you possess any facts and/or logic in any meaningful capacity. Your only go-to is an affirmation to a political party. You call people stupid and run away when cornered. So, now it's your time to shine. Dazzle us.

This whole tiff started, mostly, because the Hawk was simply stating a fact, and you were triggered by it. . .

Tucker may have, "cost Fox News 700 million," but it has been repeatedly emphasized, that he was let go, NOT, because of that controversy. Added to that, he has probably made multiple amounts more money for advertisers and for the network.


You are not being rational at this point, and this is, more than likely, not what your anger is about. . .

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Another one to listen to on this topic is Megyn Kelley.
After her contract expired this year with Fox News, she can now speak about her time there.
She talks about how they were given numerous "untouchable" subjects. If you talked about them you would be in breach of contract and fired.

 

[MisterBeale]

Ahhhhh....who cares?

Anyone that reads the OP and responds. . . apparently?

 

[jc456]

Ummmm, yeah they do. Tucker can say what ever he wants, as long as it's not within the criteria of the contract he signed. As in reporting news anywhere else except Fox.
Tucker probably agreed to that in the contract he signed.

You think trump signed a contract forfeiting his first amendment?

 

[Skylar]

Probably?

We don't know. We'll have to wait and see, and let the lawyers and system sort this out IMO.

Que será, será?


Till then, it looks like he is just going to continue?

. . . .

Tucker himself has said that this Twitter show is a new version of his old show.

"Starting soon, we'll be bringing a new version of the show we've been doing for the last six and a half years to Twitter," he said. "We bring some other things too, which we'll tell you about."

That Tucker's Twitter show violates his exclusivity clause with Fox (who is still paying him) is pretty much a slam dunk.

The only question is who will be paying for the breach. My guess is that Tucker and Elon have some financial arraignment worked out for Elon to cover the losses, using 'free speech' as their public justification.

 

[Skylar]

Anyone that reads the OP and responds. . . apparently?

I care. Its a fascinating legal question.

 

[Skylar]

I concur, but many here don't.

They believe that because of his contract with Fox, consideration or not, Tucker, his face, and the contents of his head, are now the property of the Fox News Corp. until 2025. To these folks, in their minds, Tucker has lost his First Amendment rights, and the Thirteenth Amendment can be made obsolete by corporations as well.

Tucker himself has described what he's doing as a new version of his old show.

If you're being paid 25 million a year to exclusively create content for Fox, you can't take Fox's money and make content for another service.

Tucker has pretty much conceded the argument with admission of the new show being a new version of the old show. The only real question now is how much will be paid for the breach and who will be paying it.

 

[MisterBeale]

Tucker himself has described what he's doing as a new version of his old show.

I admit, that is a pretty damning statement.

If he is receiving consideration? It is a slam dunk.

OTH? If it is just him exercising his First Amendment rights, and he is just a preforming service to for the nation & community? It doesn't matter if he describes it as a, "new version," of his old show. . . it is not competing, if there is no money involved.

Lawyers will have to prove that twitter is getting compensated in a like manner, and Tucker is likewise receiving compensation, IMO. But I am not expert, so we'll have to wait and see. . . .



meh, we'll have to agree to disagree, and wait to see what the establishment has to say about all this. . .

I don't believe a corporation, or a contract, can ever make a slave of a free citizen, exercising their natural rights. Sorry.

 

[Skylar]

I admit, that is a pretty damning statement.

If he is receiving consideration? It is a slam dunk.

OTH? If it is just him exercising his First Amendment rights, and he is just a service to for the nation & community?

meh, we'll have to agree to disagree, and wait to see what the establishment has to say about all this. . .

I don't believe a corporation, or a contract, can ever make a slave of a free citizen exercising their national rights. Sorry.

Exclusivity is more restrictive than non-competes. Non-competes often requires consideration. Exclusivity does not.

Tucker is toast on breach, in all likelihood. Tucker is also quite smart, and knows this. Speculating here, but I think its likely he's already worked out details with Elon on how the breach will be paid for.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

If fo is still paying carlson then they have a right to expect him to keep his word.
He could probably buy out his contract. Or does freedom have a price he isnt willing to pay ?

 

[Delldude]

I don't think he signed anything as a term for leaving

From what I read, he was pulled without prior notice,claiming Fox breached his contract.

Tucker 90 millions views Carlson.

Eww....that gotta hurt.

 

[Skylar]

From what I read, he was pulled without prior notice,claiming Fox breached his contract.

Carlson's arguments so far have been about Fox 'breaking promises'. He's been careful claims of Fox violating their contract.

Legally speaking, undefined 'promises' are less bending that contracts.

 

[Delldude]

Carlson's arguments so far have been about Fox 'breaking promises'. He's been careful claims of Fox violating their contract.

Legally speaking, undefined 'promises' are less bending that contracts.

Yet he's so scared, he just popped hid forth episode......LOL

 

[Delldude]

Carlson's arguments so far have been about Fox 'breaking promises'. He's been careful claims of Fox violating their contract.

Legally speaking, undefined 'promises' are less bending that contracts.

Personal posts on Twitter are a first amendment right.

 

[AsherN]

Personal posts on Twitter are a first amendment right.

You misunderstand the First Amendment.

 

[MisterBeale]

Yet he's so scared, he just popped hid forth episode......LOL

Thanks. I don't have have a smart phone, or this app on my PC, so unless someone says something, I don't even look. lol