Also, didn't Tucker get a totally cherry contract from Fux? Most of the Fux talent has contracts with all sorts of non compete clauses, restrictions, etc. But Tucker is able to do his own podcast a month after being fired?
This was my observation on this in a similar post:
Remember that all the social media companies have been hiding behind Section 230 to escape liability of criminal content since it says they are not publishers.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Courts have recognized this, which means the courts also recognize the socials do not compete in the same arena as cable news. Different arena, so a no-compete clause does not apply to Twitter.
The DS would either have to give up the section 230 protections or allow Tucker to drop redpill MOAB's on normies.
Which makes me wonder if that isn't exactly what they (the ds) are trying to accomplish: be compelled into ending section 230, thereby exculpating themselves (various social media companies) from culpability— by being "forced" to smother free speech and freedom of expression. They'll become "publishers," and have to act like publishers. What do you think that they are going to do with this newfound responsibility? Everything that they do from then on will be worse than anything that you've ever seen on any cable news.
Speculation is that his contract does not block him from being on social media. Imagine The fallout if he was told he could not be on Twitter or Gab or Facebook or any other social media platforms.
Also, didn't Tucker get a totally cherry contract from Fux? Most of the Fux talent has contracts with all sorts of non compete clauses, restrictions, etc. But Tucker is able to do his own podcast a month after being fired?
This was my observation on this in a similar post:
Remember that all the social media companies have been hiding behind Section 230 to escape liability of criminal content since it says they are not publishers.
Courts have recognized this, which means the courts also recognize the socials do not compete in the same arena as cable news. Different arena, so a no-compete clause does not apply to Twitter.
The DS would either have to give up the section 230 protections or allow Tucker to drop redpill MOAB's on normies.
Which makes me wonder if that isn't exactly what they (the ds) are trying to accomplish: be compelled into ending section 230, thereby exculpating themselves (various social media companies) from culpability— by being "forced" to smother free speech and freedom of expression. They'll become "publishers," and have to act like publishers. What do you think that they are going to do with this newfound responsibility? Everything that they do from then on will be worse than anything that you've ever seen on any cable news.
Speculation is that his contract does not block him from being on social media. Imagine The fallout if he was told he could not be on Twitter or Gab or Facebook or any other social media platforms.
Correct! I was wondering about that as well.
Tucker is suing fox and has left the rest of his 25 million on the table with them. His lawyers say that if he was fired then his non compete is void.