Fox Sends ‘Cease and Desist’ to Tucker on Eve of Major Trump Defense Episode.
(thenationalpulse.com)
IT'S AFRAID!
Comments (36)
sorted by:
I love the smell of desperation in the morning.
The courts have consistently ruled that you can't take someone's lively hood away in an NDA agreement. So for example, you can't order a painter to not paint. That would take away his trade. Fox has moved to the left. Tucker is clearly NOT LEFT. It would be like CNN suing Rush for infringing on their audience. It has been reported that Fox agreed to allow Tucker to have his social media. Well, Fox, you screwed up, bigly. Can't cry now.
No normal person has the resources to fight an NDA or Non-Compete with a large corporation. Supposedly the FTC has taken up this cause. Perhaps Tucker will be the poster boy. But I expect nothing will come of it for the normies until at least 2025.
They are still paying him.
It's not an NDA, it's a noncompete clause. It's about exclusivity.
He is still under contract.
Yes but: IF ( and that's a big IF) Fox allowed him to post on social media, then Fox loses. Twitter is a social media company (for now and at the time of the contract). IF Tucker went on CNN, or MSLSD, or a TV network, he'd be violating the NDA and probably the employment contract. Again, the courts can't fix a bad contract. If Fox didn't specify that Tucker can't do POD casts, or post on social media, then Fox loses.
But it is a show. And Tucker has called it a show.
https://youtu.be/2EpiMY1tEY4
So I don't think it's that cut and dry.
Well, that is a problem. It "could be" argued that with no advertisers, it's not a commercial "show." I can call my cat a tree, but that doesn't make it so.
I guess that's why we have lawyers and courts.
and you're right, we're intermixing NDA with noncompete. What we're all actually talking about is actually a noncompete.
You are 100% correct, but that covenant is broken when the Contracting party acts in bad faith.
Barney style:
Fox agrees to pay Tucker for exclusive rights to his talent/‘services’.
Fox now refuses to allow Tucker to perform his services, but still pays him. That is acting in ‘bad faith’.
Tucker is a ‘high profile personality’ whose monetary value is tied to his ‘popularity’ (people know and follow). ‘Popularity’ requires maintainence.
Given the nature of his work, those people generally requires almost constant exposure to the public in the form of his ‘entertainment’ (commentary/journalism).
Bad Faith.
I'm no lawyer, but I don't think contract law goes like that
Fox has 2 choices. They can fire him and stop paying him. Or they don't. If he actually breaches the contract then he doesn't get paid. There isn't a scenario where they can take away his free speech. He's worth north of $400 million. I don't think he gives a fuck what they do. He's not going to stop.
I agree. I think you are right. We know they are threatening a lawsuit but I don't think a civil action cancels your 1st amendment right. They act like he committed a crime. It's not. So what if he broke the non-compete clause. So sue him. Otherwise, stfu Faux news.
OK … Im listening …
Why would Tucker even still be subject to a 'do not compete' clause when he was terminated? Shouldn't that have rendered any and all contracts null and void? Or did he agree to a payout in exchange to such contracts remaining in effect? Either way, should be interesting seeing this taken to court. See how dystopian it can get if one man recording his own videos and posting them on social media is officially declared competition for a major corporation.
They’re still paying him a salary. He’s just not on the air. He’s still under contract, according to Fox.
Tucker can choose to terminate that contract if Fox tries to silence him and a push becomes a shove in the courts.
Yup. The only remedy Fox has is to actually fire him for breach of contract. They can't shut him up. He doesn't need their money or anything from them really. He's extremely wealthy. For some strange reason they thought they could keep him under contract AND silence him. They can't.
Simply being terminated DOES NOT violate an employment contract or an NDA. An employment contract contains the terms of employment. They usually have a clause like we will pay you [amount] for [task], however we can terminate you for....morals violations....drug usage...not doing your job...bad ethics....harming corporate moral...putting the company in jeopardy, and a lot of other such clauses. The NDA would survive such justified terminations.
Something that would terminate an NDA would be if the company stopped paying the employee. That's a violation of the contract. The NDA would probably NOT survive a contract violation.
The courts will NOT protect a company for making a bad decision. If the company enters a contract that has bad financial consequences, for example, the court will not save the company from a bad decision. A contract is a contract, good or bad.
Fox acted in Bad Faith by not allowing Tucker to maintain his ‘Brand Equity’. Bad Faith violated the covenants of Fair Dealing. Cant do that.
I suppose the argument could be made that Tucker was hired as an "On Air" talent. If Fox now has him being a Desk-Jocky, that's the breach. Faith not required.
It would be nice if Tucker were to come out and declare "In light of my former employer's attempts to remove my God-given right to free speech, as spelled out in this country's founding documents, I've decided to add more shows to my line-up. This will include an expose of the corruption in media..."
Cease and desist, in what capacity? Stop talking?
Fox is still paying him .
They say
So what if Fox is still paying him. Does not mean Fox owns him. Does the non-compete say anything about him posting videos on his social media accounts?
The fact they are still paying him means they haven't breached the contract.
So they might own his work.
Interesting angle.
Fuck Fox and paul ryan.
That's funny. What are they going to do? Actually fire him this time? Worse case scenario is someone worth north of $400 million won't get paid his $20 million a year to sit at home. I don't think he gives a fuck. They have absolutely zero basis to stop him from talking. They can either fire him for good or STFU.
MSNBC silenced Jesse Ventura in a similar fashion after he dared speak out against the war in Iraq.
From an LA Times interview -
This is not your first venture into TV hosting since leaving the governorship. What happened to “Jesse Ventura’s America,” which ran briefly on MSNBC in 2003?
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-nov-29-la-ca-conversation29-2009nov29-story.html
He's being paid to not broadcast on FOX... he's following his paymasters' orders. He's not paid by anyone to post videos on Twitter. They can pound sand.
Other shoe dropped from the previous legal action
NO
He gunna own dem and den I'll go back
Again. I'm no lawyer. But if they pay him, they are honoring the contract.and this I don't think a bad faith claim means anything.