Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Tucker Carlson Going SCORCHED EARTH On Fox News?! Report Alleges Fmr Host Declared War On Network" video.

@DC, but Tucker's field has serious First Amendment implications AND has literally no trade secrets or similar IP implications. So as long as he gives up the money, the non-compete should be null and void.
2
@utah, so as long as he foregoes that money, GAME OVER.
1
@DC-rd6oq Public policy overrides contracts, and is informed by the First Amendment. No court will enforce terms that encroach on fundamental rights. Then anyone with gobs of $$ could have anyone silenced. Specific performance in general is disfavored anyway. But given the power of money today, your argument could prevail -- right or wrong.
1
@DC-rd6oq Actually, they often are not. Are you a lawyer?
1
@DC-rd6oq Certainly public policy can override contract terms. No court will issue a ruling to enforce a contract term that is against public policy. Why do you think contracts contain severability clauses? The main reason IS because one or more of their terms may prove to be unenforceable. If a contract term places a court in the position of curtailing press freedom, it will not enforce that term, regardless of jurisdiction. The Constitution preempts any and all laws to the contrary. Cool. It let me correct it.
1
@DC-rd6oq Look, never mind. I just got a new tablet that autocorrects and rejects edits. You needn't "feel sorry" for the clients of anyone who actually knows how to argue the First Amendment, apparently a lost art. Non-compete clauses are enforced when an employee can take with them knowledge, construed in a broad sense, that they obtained on the job and could not have obtained in some other way. In the first place, a lot of courts won't enforce a clause once an employee is fired. So, did Fox think it could do an end-run on that rule by sidelining him but not firing him? This deserves a laugh-out-loud all right. They can't structure something to prevent him from exercising free speech. He could call their bluff: start his own broadcast and refuse to monetize it. The ball would then be in their court. You think they would sue? They would perhaps stop paying on the contract. Cool; constructive discharge. You're worrying about terminology when you seem not to grasp preemption, or the degree to which courts will avoid encroaching on the First Amendment. Private people cannot bind other people to the degree you seem to think they can; even specific performance is disfavored wherever money damages will do, and they generally will, much less where stifling freedom of speech and of the press are at issue. Try thinking creatively. I'm sure Tucker's lawyers will.
1
@DC-rd6oq "If structured properly" -- you mean so that they don't inhibit free speech, or otherwise contravene federal laws or public policy? Yeah, that could work.
1
@DC-rd6oq That's all ya got? Why am I not surprised? BTW, in California, where I'm licensed, non-compete clauses are heavily disfavored, and are presumed to be unreasonable -- granted, that is a rebuttable presumption. Not easily so, but sure. It could happen. (Tucker's lawyer is based there I see.)
1
@DC-rd6oq I am still right about the First Amendment issue in THIS specific case. This will be about money.
1
@DC-rd6oq you were hung up on a typo, and rude I clerked for a federal appellate court. And no jurisdiction is particularly fond of non-competes. Their heyday is over. This tech just changed clerked to clerk's. LOL, ruining all of our minds.
1
@DC-rd6oq Huh? I thought it was tiring to push something that's not true. Isn't that why it pays well?
1
@DC-rd6oq :)
1
@DC-rd6oq You mean I'm supposed to want the last word?? No, no, it's yours.
1
Tucker's field has serious First Amendment implications AND has literally no trade secrets or similar IP implications. So as long as he gives up the money, the non-compete clause should be null and void.
1