Wow. Such insanity. Now he wants to insult advertisers and then sue them for terminating their business with him? In what kind of twisted world does that make sense?
"Any company may, on its own, refuse to do business with another firm, but an agreement among competitors not to do business with targeted individuals or businesses may be an illegal boycott, especially if the group of competitors working together has market power."
The term “agreement among competitors” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that quotation. Is there any evidence that this boycott was coordinated? AFAIK so far every advertiser who pulled out has a solid reason for doing so.
I don't know, but the Congressional report claims "a GARM member documented discussions about the boycott, noting that the company had pulled advertisements from Twitter based on GARM's recommendations."
What are the cohorts of competitors vs simply a bunch of companies? If a couple of alcoholic beverage companies or airlines were part of the group as well as unrelated companies, it could be said that competitors were agreeing. But that's super weak.
I think the why must matter though right? Unrelated to I viewpoint could you just sue a group because they all agree advertising on your platform is useless?
Oh. I see. Sounds a bit like that bakery that said "we don't bake cakes for gays" and got justifiably (in my opinion) sued. Though it's not really the same, it's kinda the reverse (refusing business)
I guess if such a thing really happened he might have a case. But I'm sure Disney can easily get out of it by just submitting the infamous "go fuck yourself" interview into evidence :)
> that bakery that said "we don't bake cakes for gays" and got justifiably slapped.
If you're referring to Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, you're mistaken on two points. First of all, the bakery didn't get slapped. The Commission got slapped [1].
> The Commission compared Phillips's religious beliefs to defense of slavery or the Holocaust. Kennedy found such comparisons "inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law".
> The Court avoided ruling broadly on the intersection of anti-discrimination laws and rights to free exercise.
> Kennedy's decision specifically noted the hostility towards Phillips made by the Commission as their reason to reverse the ruling, but because of the existence of this hostility in the current case, they could not rule on the broader issue regarding anti-discrimination law and the free exercise of religion.
Secondly, the baker refused to make an on-demand wedding cake for a gay couple because, according to the baker, doing so would express approval of a gay marriage against the baker's religious beliefs. The gay couple could buy a general-purpose cake or anything already on a shelf.
Anyway, whatever led advertisers to leave Twitter probably had nothing to do with protected classes. Political opinions are not protected classes.
Not applicable in this case since the advertisers are not competitors to twitter, rather they are soliciting twitter for a service and there is pretty much no scenario where it would be illegal not to buy a service from a particular vendor.
I get the impression he's been doing more drugs lately. The other day he was alleging that people voting against a voter ID bill in Congress were traitors (in all caps) and insinuating they deserve the death penalty; and he amplifies bizarre conspiracy theories or plain fake news stories every few days. Perhaps he's just deliberately trolling to confound his critics, but it's equally plausible that he's trying to adjust reality to his feelings rather than the other way around.
It sucks that a lot of corps dont see them self as companies but as power in the politcal realm. The only reson does companies are boycotting is because of the politics of elons musk. Its righteous to prosecurte these power-drunk, corporations. Blackrock and vanguard should be dissolved as a consequence.
16 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 40.9 ms ] threadhttps://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
"Any company may, on its own, refuse to do business with another firm, but an agreement among competitors not to do business with targeted individuals or businesses may be an illegal boycott, especially if the group of competitors working together has market power."
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/how-worlds-...
I guess if such a thing really happened he might have a case. But I'm sure Disney can easily get out of it by just submitting the infamous "go fuck yourself" interview into evidence :)
If you're referring to Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, you're mistaken on two points. First of all, the bakery didn't get slapped. The Commission got slapped [1].
> The Commission compared Phillips's religious beliefs to defense of slavery or the Holocaust. Kennedy found such comparisons "inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law".
> The Court avoided ruling broadly on the intersection of anti-discrimination laws and rights to free exercise.
> Kennedy's decision specifically noted the hostility towards Phillips made by the Commission as their reason to reverse the ruling, but because of the existence of this hostility in the current case, they could not rule on the broader issue regarding anti-discrimination law and the free exercise of religion.
Secondly, the baker refused to make an on-demand wedding cake for a gay couple because, according to the baker, doing so would express approval of a gay marriage against the baker's religious beliefs. The gay couple could buy a general-purpose cake or anything already on a shelf.
Anyway, whatever led advertisers to leave Twitter probably had nothing to do with protected classes. Political opinions are not protected classes.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...