Sponsors finally leaving Tucker Carlson.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,084
126
Tucker will find a way to orally stimulate the stunted brain stems of his moron viewership.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
81,531
14,730
126


As has already been stated a number of times, the news is not legally obligated to be factual.
And commentators get a free pass on everything, it seems.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: JEDIYoda

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,803
2,492
136
People don't really understand free speech. They demand that sponsors have no right to choose whether or not they continue to sponsor based on the media that is being produced. Honoring that demand would be a violation of the sponsors' free speech. If the people want to hear the content that Tucker creates, they can bloody well sponsor him from their own pockets.

*I don't know what contracts the sponsors have with Fox, etc. If withdrawing from supporting Tucker violates a contract, then they may be civilly liable for that breach, but that has nothing to do with free speech, and breach of contact is not criminal. They could still do it and expose themselves to whatever civil liability is attached if they don't like Tucker's racism. Making it criminal would be a free speech violation.

*Apparently there are cases where a breach of contract could be attached to criminal charges if there is criminal intent in causing damages to someone via said breach, but I could hardly imagine how this might apply to the above.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,032
30,865
136
People don't really understand free speech. They demand that sponsors have no right to choose whether or not they continue to sponsor based on the media that is being produced. Honoring that demand would be a violation of the sponsors' free speech. If the people want to hear the content that Tucker creates, they can bloody well sponsor him from their own pockets.

*I don't know what contracts the sponsors have with Fox, etc. If withdrawing from supporting Tucker violates a contract, then they may be civilly liable for that breach, but that has nothing to do with free speech, and breach of contact is not criminal. They could still do it and expose themselves to whatever civil liability is attached if they don't like Tucker's racism. Making it criminal would be a free speech violation.

*Apparently there are cases where a breach of contract could be attached to criminal charges if there is criminal intent in causing damages to someone via said breach, but I could hardly imagine how this might apply to the above.
Exactly, people often believe 'freedom of speech' means 'freedom of consequences for your speech'. Freedom of speech only means the government can't throw you in jail for saying things it doesn't like. It offers no protection from being shunned, nor should it.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,803
2,492
136
Exactly, people often believe 'freedom of speech' means 'freedom of consequences for your speech'. Freedom of speech only means the government can't throw you in jail for saying things it doesn't like. It offers no protection from being shunned, nor should it.
Well it means more than that, but yeah. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that anyone should be required to give you a platform to publicize that speech.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,803
2,492
136
What more does it mean?
Laws or regulations involving civil liability, fines, funding, etc. from anywhere in the Federal government. Covering individuals as well as businesses. Speech constituting behavior which expresses opinion e.g. giving money. And of course there are situations where speech can be limited. All this stuff I'm sure you know.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,032
30,865
136
Laws or regulations involving civil liability, fines, funding, etc. from anywhere in the Federal government. Covering individuals as well as businesses. Speech constituting behavior which expresses opinion e.g. giving money. And of course there are situations where speech can be limited. All this stuff I'm sure you know.
Sure, I agree that the ways in which the government can't sanction you for speech are more than just jail, but my point was that such prohibitions only apply to the government. Individuals can silence you to their heart's content.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,803
2,492
136
Sure, I agree that the ways in which the government can't sanction you for speech are more than just jail, but my point was that such prohibitions only apply to the government. Individuals can silence you to their heart's content.
Absolutely.
 

uallas5

Golden Member
Jun 3, 2005
1,141
922
136
Exactly, people often believe 'freedom of speech' means 'freedom of consequences for your speech'. Freedom of speech only means the government can't throw you in jail for saying things it doesn't like. It offers no protection from being shunned, nor should it.
This has been posted before but it's both apt to the discussion and f'n great:

free_speech.png
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,924
3,274
126
People don't really understand free speech. They demand that sponsors have no right to choose whether or not they continue to sponsor based on the media that is being produced. Honoring that demand would be a violation of the sponsors' free speech. If the people want to hear the content that Tucker creates, they can bloody well sponsor him from their own pockets.

*I don't know what contracts the sponsors have with Fox, etc. If withdrawing from supporting Tucker violates a contract, then they may be civilly liable for that breach, but that has nothing to do with free speech, and breach of contact is not criminal. They could still do it and expose themselves to whatever civil liability is attached if they don't like Tucker's racism. Making it criminal would be a free speech violation.

*Apparently there are cases where a breach of contract could be attached to criminal charges if there is criminal intent in causing damages to someone via said breach, but I could hardly imagine how this might apply to the above.
I remember reading an article about sponsors withdrawing from contracts with TV programs! In those contracts the wording is such that if the program they are sponsoring crosses the ethical standards of the sponsor or other things the sponsor is not bound b y contract to stay the course......I have been looking for the article but to no avail! Perhaps the ATOT Legal Beagles can give us an answer!
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,803
2,492
136
I remember reading an article about sponsors withdrawing from contracts with TV programs! In those contracts the wording is such that if the program they are sponsoring crosses the ethical standards of the sponsor or other things the sponsor is not bound b y contract to stay the course......I have been looking for the article but to no avail! Perhaps the ATOT Legal Beagles can give us an answer!
I don't really know, but while that may be an industry standard, it doesn't have to be the case for every contact. I'd expect big companies like Disney wouldn't ink a contract without it. Maybe no one would. I also wonder if there might not be grounds to void a contract like this even if the text doesn't specifically allow it. Again, all that is civil, having nothing to do with government and nothing to do with free speech at least from a Constitutional standpoint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,810
4,685
126
Free speech is a problem for people because words made us sick and words can trigger that sickness. We would rather die and can sometimes even kill to deny our most suppressed feelings that negative sounding words are true. Violence and disregard for the anger of others feeling just the same disrespected feelings we do happens because at root we hate ourselves, feelings we don't know we feel, don't want to know we feel, and we certainly never want to hear more words that would suggest we do feel those things.

But for those who realize this truth free speech is a blessing. It means that one commits oneself to exposure to being hurt and that if we give those feeling expression we may plumb them to their root and remember and realize we bought into a lie. This is also the reason that group therapy is so valuable. It offers lots of exposure to the free speech of others and a chance to own the reactions.

Anyone seeking an in depth understanding of US history with free speech may enjoy this:

 
Last edited:

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,752
10,856
136
Good old Tucker, keeping it classy. He's now emulating attacking vets like Trump, is he ready for 2024?

I say let him run in 2024. His record of saying shitty things, particularly in regards to immigrants, will make him instantly look like another Trump. And I suspect the electorate will be in no mood for that in 2024.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,070
10,634
136
Good old Tucker, keeping it classy. He's now emulating attacking vets like Trump, is he ready for 2024?

It's an amazing country we live in where "patriots" who never served feel entitled to question a war hero's love of America.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zinfamous

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
54,155
6,727
126
Good old Tucker, keeping it classy. He's now emulating attacking vets like Trump, is he ready for 2024?

Oh, man, that pic of Carlson in the article really calls for a caption regarding the size of his genitalia...
 

Stopsignhank

Platinum Member
Mar 1, 2014
2,030
906
136
It's an amazing country we live in where "patriots" who never served feel entitled to question a war hero's love of America.
Remember Trump prefers his ware heroes that did not get captured and now apparently if they lost a limb in the line of duty.

I had to edit my previous sarcastic statement. I felt too gross after I posted it.
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: shortylickens

ASK THE COMMUNITY