TexasCHLforum.com

CPD - I don't think libel or slander have anything to do with what Charles cited. If you have a contract of employment and I convinced your employer to fire you you would have cause under tortious interference. IANAL but say I told your employer you smoked marijuana and you're fired for it you would have a case. You would probably be able to also sue for slander. Or better how about this? I organize a protest against you outside your place of employment and your employer decides to put you on leave or fire you because of it. You are saying you have no remedy under the law. I think not. That's why the law is in place. Has nothing to do with libel, slander, being a public figure or not.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I don't know what the civil law is there, but if this were in Texas and if she had a contract with Fox, I'd be filing a suit for tortuous interference with contractual relationship. Get an injunction, attorney fees and perhaps other remedies.

Chas.

How? They are using free speech. I don't agree with it, but thats kind of the point of the Big 2A, to protect the rights of others to say what we don't like and admit how stupid they are.

Tortious interference is attempting to interfere in the contractual relationship existing between two other parties.

Sure, they have free speech, but that neither justifies falsely yelling fire in a movie theater nor interfering in someone's contract.

Which they are doing neither. Good luck with making that claim in court.

IANAL Charles is. I think their actions could meet this definition. per Legal Match
"The purpose of tortious interference laws is to allow parties the freedom to contract with one another and fulfill their contractual obligations without third-party meddling." emphasis by me. It falls under tort law not contractual law. I don't think it is a stretch to state that getting someone fired will definitely prevent the fulfillment of their obligations and no one but an idiot would think a broadcaster would not be working under contract.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/a ... racts.html