Fox News says Tucker Carlson breached his contract

[AsherN]

First he's not an employee, then the claim is that he is an employee. lol none of it is going to fly in a real court. His profession is print and broadcast journalist; they can not take him off the air and then deny him seeking work elsewhere; paying him under such circumstances doesn't mean squat. They can't legally ruin his career, and without seeing the contract nobody here can claim otherwise;the contract may merely cover being a contract producer, for one, in which case the contract is with his production company, and he's free to be an employee anywhere he wants and they hire him as an employee. To claim he's still employed they have to prove he's still working and they're holding up their end of the production agreement, i.e. for however many episodes they contracted him for, as an example. It's clear they aren't. He's an employee of his company? Makes no difference, he can quit working for his own company same as any other employee can.

He's under contract. That the employer is not using him does not make him any less bound by the terms of the contract. He can always quit, and lose his $20m/year for the next 2 years.

 

[Rocko]

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?

Tucker was one of the employees that costed Fox 787 million dollars. It wasn’t an amicable spilt. I’m sure Fox would love to stick it to him.

 

[MisterBeale]

He gave up his rights when he signed the contract...

No one ever gives up their Constitutional Rights by signing a contract.

The very worst possible out come of this case, is that the courts will find in favor of Fox, perhaps fine him, and file an injuction that he can no longer post on twitter. They might even vacate Tucker's contract & he will no longer be paid what Fox has agree to pay him. But he will ALWAYS still be allowed his first amendment rights.

If the establishment wanted Tucker to be silenced and go away, this is might be the worst possible way to go about it.

Streisand effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You act like you aren't even an American.

Stahp it.

This will just draw more folks to Tucker's side, and piss off more Americans.

He has more than enough money, to set up a website, to host his own videos, to create content, on a non-profit basis to get around any injunction which would violate a "competition clause," at this point.

If the interlocking directorate wants to force him to individually exercise his first amendment rights in such a manner, he just might. You can't take folks constitutional rights away, with corporate lawfare, this is America.

 

[jc456]

We'll see.

IMO? That would be a very difficult argument for any attorney to make a claim that Tucker was violating a, "non-compete clause," by using social media to spread ideas, peer to peer. They would have to prove he is in some sort of conscious collusion with Twitter I believe.

They would legitimize twitter as a news source which is not their license!!

 

[jc456]

Nope, all mine; I haven't read a thing Trump has said about any of it; we all know what it is from the second they started their sleazy sham.

No, I was referring to the demofks

 

[jc456]

He's under contract. That the employer is not using him does not make him any less bound by the terms of the contract. He can always quit, and lose his $20m/year for the next 2 years.

It matters what the contract says. You act as if you wrote it. Did you? If not, then you can stfu

 

[MisterBeale]

He wouldn't be a private citizen if he were still under a contract in good standing with Fox. Fox will still have the right to direct his media endeavors to prevent him engaging in efforts that would create a conflict of interest. And you can bet he probably falls under a noncompete clause which have been upheld by the courts.

.

Well. . . from my POV, everyone has a private life, and also professional activities that they do for their employer.

From my POV, I no amount of legalese in a corporate contract abridges his First Amendment, Constitutional Rights.

I can see, where what he did for Fox, and his personal opinions, seem, to some, to look very much the same. However, I see nuance, I do see a difference here.
He definitely seems to be saying things, that the corporation would not allow him to say before. I personally, don't understand how some in this thread, can't see that.



. . . we'll just have to wait and see I suppose.

 

[jc456]

Well. . . from my POV, everyone has a private life, and also professional activities that they do for their employer.

From my POV, I no amount of legalese in a corporate contract abridges his First Amendment, Constitutional Rights.

I can see, where what he did for Fox, and his personal opinions, seem, to some, to look very much the same. However, I see nuance, I do see a difference here.
He definitely seems to be saying things, that the corporation would not allow him to say before. I personally, don't understand how some in this thread, can't see that.



. . . we'll just have to wait and see I suppose.

John Fogerty couldn’t play his own songs for sixty years because of his contract

John Fogerty Finally Acquires Rights to His Creedence Clearwater Revival Songs

After more than 50 years, John Fogerty has finally acquired publishing rights to songs for Creedence Clearwater Revival, including 'Proud Mary.'

variety.com

 

[DudleySmith]

He's under contract. That the employer is not using him does not make him any less bound by the terms of the contract. He can always quit, and lose his $20m/year for the next 2 years.

Doesn't matter; they can't prevent him from seeking other employment, period. All they can do, if they're lucky, is prevent him from using his production company as a front and business vehicle, if that. Nobody has seen the contract, but we don't need to when it comes to his right to work.

 

[DudleySmith]

Well. . . from my POV, everyone has a private life, and also professional activities that they do for their employer.

From my POV, I no amount of legalese in a corporate contract abridges his First Amendment, Constitutional Rights.

I can see, where what he did for Fox, and his personal opinions, seem, to some, to look very much the same. However, I see nuance, I do see a difference here.
He definitely seems to be saying things, that the corporation would not allow him to say before. I personally, don't understand how some in this thread, can't see that.



. . . we'll just have to wait and see I suppose.

Twitter is not a competitor with Fox. They are two different businesses. There is no Twitter cable news and commentary channel competing with Fox for viewers.

 

[jc456]

Tucker was one of the employees that costed Fox 787 million dollars. It wasn’t an amicable spilt. I’m sure Fox would love to stick it to him.

Inaccurate . See, you fkers believe any fking thing. Let me know if you need proof

 

[OKTexas]

Well. . . from my POV, everyone has a private life, and also professional activities that they do for their employer.

From my POV, I no amount of legalese in a corporate contract abridges his First Amendment, Constitutional Rights.

I can see, where what he did for Fox, and his personal opinions, seem, to some, to look very much the same. However, I see nuance, I do see a difference here.
He definitely seems to be saying things, that the corporation would not allow him to say before. I personally, don't understand how some in this thread, can't see that.



. . . we'll just have to wait and see I suppose.

Yep, it depends on how a court will see it.

.

 

[Skylar]

Well, we are just speculating on the outcome.

Not really. Fox has apparently quoted parts of their contract with Carlson in their breach notice which clearly establishes exclusivity to Carlson's services.

"Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Mr. Carlson’s 'services shall be completely exclusive to Fox,'

He's being paid by Fox under their contract that runs through at least 2025. The likelihood of an exclusivity clause is damn near certain, especially with Fox calling it out in their claims of breach.

Carlson himself calls what he's doing on Twitter as a new version of his 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's a non-compete clause and exclusivity clause slam dunk. Everyone agrees that Carlson is launching a new version of his Fox show on Twitter.....while he is still being paid by Fox.

The speculation kicks in on how Carlson will handle the breach. I speculate that Carlson has an agreement with Musk to pay him an amount commiserate with what Carlson will be losing in his Fox contract. I also speculate that Musk has committed to paying some or all of Carlson's legal fees.

Carlson's loss of income from Fox under his contract is essentially certain. What's not certain is if Fox can claim damages in excess of that salary. Or enforce the contract with a court order shutting down the competing show. On that, I don't know.

 

[YoursTruly]

No one ever gives up their Constitutional Rights by signing a contract.

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.

 

[MisterBeale]

Tucker probably agreed to that in the contract he signed.

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?

. . . .

 

[BackAgain]

Hey, do you mean Fucker 'I cost Fox News 700 million because I couldn't stop lying' Carlspin?

Your heroes are garbage people. Three guesses what that makes you.

More evidence ^ which confirms that Fumblin’ Dickweed is opposed to any presentation of facts or opinions which dare contradict the leftist narrative.

 

[Captain Caveman]

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?

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.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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?

It is a battle against freedom.
These contracts, by design, are to allow the media company to completely control it's employees. Not just during their employ, but for extended periods of time after. They get away with it because they pay you $millions for it. This is normal, and not new.
What IS new... is the media outlets are pushing their contractors to lie. Both outright, and by omission. And to do it daily.
That is what is being exposed.
That Fox News is an organization that is producing lies. Not that most of you didn't know that. Of course every single other major news source does the same.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

More evidence ^ which confirms that Fumblin’ Dickweed is opposed to any presentation of facts or opinions which dare contradict the leftist narrative.

Try me.

 

[BackAgain]

Try me.

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