Paragraph 15 of the complaint specifically says that the agreement is to broadcast it live via the Univision or Unimas networks at least once. Paragraph 13 claims that the contract says that the parties agreed to broadcast it during Primetime Eastern Time and that the Miss Universe Organization will use reasonable efforts to stage the contests on a Sunday night.
Do you have a link to the complaint?
Thank you for that clarification.
Paragraph 29 of the complaint says that Mr Ciurana, Univison’s President of Content and Programming posted a picture comparing Mr Trump to the Charleston South Carolina church killer on the official Univision Instagram page. That picture has since been removed.
Aren’t legal complaints usually fairly dry? That thing sounds like it was written, in part, to stroke his ego.
Ya think???
Not a lawyer and no comment about the merits or lack thereof but I disagree with you … there is no part of this that is not about his ego.
Even if the contract says they have to broadcast it once and they don’t do that, and Trump makes that a basis for his suit, doesn’t he still have to show how it damaged him?
Maybe they could also nitpick what “broadcast” means. Compare the meaning of “publish”, as used in slander and libel suits: You don’t have to put it on the front page of the London Times. If you just tell one other person who didn’t need to know and had no business knowing, you’ve “published”. (This was the case with that anesthetist last week who trash-talked the patient with three “outsiders” in the room.) Maybe if the Univision execs invite one homeless hobo into their auditorium for a private showing, then it’s “broadcast”?
ETA:
Okay, that then. I still wonder if Trump still has to prove how he is damaged if they don’t broadcast.
I look forward to reading NBC’s response. I doubt there’s any network TV contract in existence that doesn’t have an out when it comes to a live, primetime broadcast, particularly one which holds a network to an iron-clad clause while stating that the producer only has to make “reasonable efforts” to provide the program.
Tacky, perhaps, but Donald Trump is an announced candidate for President, and he of all people should understand that you can say almost anything about someone when they’re running for President.
Well I am looking at it through the lens of discrimination, how that is mostly the province of the Right, and parsing what Trump’s behavior means in that vein. Look, I’ve been reading The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. They have a caveat:
The subject of the book is more or less summed up with this:
So when I am talking about black people and Mexicans/Latinos/Hispanics (“people of color”) in the same breath in this conversation, regrettably it is from the point of view of those who discriminate against ‘racial’ minorities, basically by looking at them. That’s how ‘black and brown’ people end up in prison in disproportionate numbers, isn’t it? Some asshole cop looking for a minority-looking guy to harass?
It doesn’t matter if Mexicans are a race or not, it matters that Latinos are getting locked up along with black people at sometimes wildly disproportionate rates compared to white people. Trump’s comments, in my parsing, tell me that he is sending the signal that he is A-OK with all of this, and will in fact do it even more, to the delight of his worthless target audience. Because portraying minority-looking people as criminals plays well to certain poor, uneducated white people, and generally distracts everyone from the incredible discrimination evident in our criminal ‘justice’ system.
Because they aren’t the majority? Anyway, see above.
Understand how stupid America can be. ‘Mexicans’ is common parlance for all those Hispanic-looking people you see, regardless of where they are really from. Don’t you have an old, racist uncle? Well, hopefully not. I did. And so did an awful lot of other Americans.
The ‘race war tactics’ are behaviors that further the ends of some apparently racist (or maybe just profiteering) interests. Portraying black people as criminals in the media is one of those tactics. Trump is using the same technique by branding Mexicans as rapists and drug dealers. Do you think he cares if they are a race, nationality, ethnicity, minority, or what? No, he is trying to get elected POTUS, and he is signalling to voters of a certain stripe that…
…well, there are Mexican-Americans, and then there are millions of Latino immigrants in the country without documentation. Trump intends to keep down the undocumented, certainly not give them a chance at citizenship, maybe deport them en masse, certainly disparage them as criminals to be suspicious of and discriminate against. If Mexican-Americans take rough treatment as a result, hey, who cares, if God didn’t intend America to be a country by and for white people, how could a half-wit like Trump ever be so wealthy and influential?
I hope you can detect my sarcasm. For someone in Trump’s position to behave the way he is means more than if it were coming from some confederate flag-waving yahoo. I think he is trying to stir up big trouble and, taking everything into account, I am not sure that Univision/NBC/anybody really needs to be bound to give him a platform. But I do get it that contracts are sticky business. See why this is an interesting questions to me?
The Reelz channel announced it will carry the Miss USA Pageant. They say they got a bargain deal.
If Trump was serious he’d just buy NBC. In a couple of months it will be forgotten in the news and the suite quietly dropped.
NBC is worth more than even Trump’s inflated claim of how much he’s worth, and Trump is worth much less than what he claims to be worth, so he couldn’t possibly buy NBC:
“Mexican/Latino/Hispanic” is not a racial classification. Those are nationalities/ethnic groups. I get it, you’re a white American so you see someone with brown skin, brown eyes, and black hair, and you say, “there’s a Mexican/Hispanic/Latino.” There are tens of millions of Caucasian Mexican/Hispanic/Latinos.
Saying someone is racist against Mexicans is as idiotic as saying someone is racist against Canadians; neither is a race.
The “race” for people of mixed Amer-Indian heritage is mestizo. The fact that someone is a citizen of Mexico, or is descended from Spaniards or Portuguese, has nothing to do with brown skin.
The fact that you and your friends call all brown people in the U.S. “Mexicans” (common parlance) doesn’t make it accurate. Moreover, those brown people have a lot of European blood, and going out of your way to classify them as non-white irritates me.
If you must classify them as non-white, go ahead. But if you are going to run around making racial distinctions when none are necessary, at least get it right.
First rule of business is to use someone else’s money. He just needs to put up earnest money to prove he’s serious.
It was of course, a joke, as is the lawsuit. All NBC has to do is prove his actions harmed them financially and any connection to him drags that out over time. And time is money.
“It was, of course, a joke” is what many posters say on the SDMB when they post something incorrect and then want to explain it away. The claim that Trump actually has any financial sway over any major corporation is absurd. His financial worth is less than that of any major corporation, and most of that worth is tied up in so many complicated deals that he couldn’t free any of it to purchase anything of significance. The only kind of influence he holds is his reputation. No corporation of any significant size thinks that Trump has financial influence that would allow him to affect their business. Trump has been getting by for decades because he’s been able to persuade a sufficiently large enough number of people that he has money, power, and business acumen. The statements he made about Mexican immigrants annoyed a large proportion of people. This made the various corporations that had been willing to work with Trump before (NBC, Univision, Televisa, Ora, Macy’s) concerned enough about the loss of his reputation this caused that they dropped any association with him.
Especially since this would require the cooperation of NBC’s parent company, Comcast, whose total assets have been hovering around $160 billion for the past few years.
If you really want to be specific, human genetic diversity is not sufficient to support the zoological classification ‘race’ for any group. There is only one human race, but colloquial language still refers to people of different ‘races’.
You need to quit looking at this in such an academic way. I am talking about who gets locked up disproportionately in this country. I am talking about who has been historically discriminated against in this country- back in the lynching days, Hispanics were lynched almost as often as black people. If you want to say the popular animus against Hispanics isn’t ‘racism’ per se, fine, but in practice, racist people discriminate against Hispanics the same way they do against black people. One of those ways is to portray black people as criminals. Trump (and others if you pay attention) are doing that to Mexicans, misnomer or not.
I don’t think you understand what I am saying. I don’t talk like this, neither do my friends. It is the justice system that singles them out way out of proportion to white people, and I think it is a colossal, shameful injustice. Trump is an arch-prick for promoting the idea that Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers, because it only serves to perpetuate discrimination in our justice system. The ignorant target audience of such race war tactics doesn’t make the distinctions you point out. You should be irritated with them.
No offense, but you are barking up the wrong tree. We are pretty much on the same side I think. But a lot of America is apparently fine with locking up Hispanic people at a disproportionate rate compared to white people, and Trump is signalling that he would continue the practice (I think pretty much every conservative big wig is on the same page, but with less bombast and more discretion than Trump). I’m sorry if my labeling of this phenomenon as ‘racism’ bothers you. I concede Mexicans are not a race.
I owe an attempt to re-rail the thread. Check out this section from “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness”:
I hope everyone can see the connection between the segregationists’ race war tactic and Trump’s behavior in the context of his political campaign. What argument would legally permit Univision to not honor a media contract with a party that clearly intends to use media platforms in an effort towards depriving targeted groups of their civil rights? Maybe there is a way, IANAL, but consider, for example, there is a contract with a rancher to rent out a bunch of horses, and the rancher later learns that his customer intends to use the horses to rob a train, the rancher could legally fail to honor the contract to prevent the commission of a crime.
If The Donald’s behavior can be characterized as criminal, maybe Univision can be legally allowed to not cooperate with his criminal goals, contract notwithstanding. Sans criminalizing The Donald, maybe Univision isn’t obligated to undermine their own target audience and harm themselves… meh, contract protocol may very well trump these considerations.
I’m not sure that anything Trump has said is criminal, or portends anything criminal that he might do. If he really does any kind of actual civil rights violations, that’s all civil law rather than criminal law, isn’t it? And he hasn’t even really threatened that. He’s just pushing a nasty xenophobic political position, implying the kind of acts he’s like to see if he gets to be Prez (like building The Great Wall of Texas). I can’t see anything illegal about his advocacy, disgusting though it may be.