Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Joyce Malcolm gets a nice write-up at National Review | Main | London experiencing knife "murder epidemic" »

Boycotts and tortious interference with contract

Posted by David Hardy · 30 March 2018 03:51 PM

So David Hogg and company are contacting Laura Ingraham's advertisers, threatening to boycott unless they stop advertising on her show. I wonder if they are familiar with the tort (roughly personal injury) of tortious interference with contract, or with a business relationship?

I'd think this is a prime case because (1) they aren't boycotting her, nor unconditionally boycotting the companies (that is, because they don't like Office Depot per se). They're threatening to boycott the companies unless they break off their relationship with her. (2) The motivation is not even a policy difference. It's meant to get even with her for her making a statement, a true statement (that Hogg had been turned down by four colleges).

Discovery might be fun... who's behind the March organization? Who really leads it and funds it? What conversations did they have about boycotting her? Who else might be liable?

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Mark-1 | March 31, 2018 8:16 AM | Reply

From a lawyer bud knowing more than I do on this stuff:

"See this all the time with activist liberal attorneys who make up the bulk of bar associations; aka the Gore youth.
From their perspective law is a vehicle to social change via activist judges who feel the constitution is only a guideline and not a binding document.
Reverse the argument about challenging sources that get government funding for murder; like planned parenthood and now you’re a fascist, racist, misogynist, and engage in homophobia. Truth is they can’t raise $ to support their cause so they legislate $ into their coffers."

Jeff | April 2, 2018 12:01 PM | Reply

If you could actually trace it back to George Soros, you would definitely have some deep pockets to pick.

Leave a comment