Nebraska Radio Station Threatens to Sue Listeners Over Boycott

[OmahaBlueDog]

Normally, I wouldn't post a thread of such local interest here in GD. However, this particular story from last week has some interesting (and disturbing) implications. Three Eagles Communications dropped a broadcast of a morning show originating in Omaha. Unhappy listeners organized a boycott. This is what happened next.....

"Three Eagles threatens to sue its critics"


LINCOLN — A handful of Lincoln radio listeners unhappy with a new morning show their station picked were surprised to receive stern letters from the station’s lawyers after organizing a boycott and contacting advertisers.

The letters from Three Eagles Communications’ lawyers threatened lawsuits if the listeners didn’t stop contacting advertisers. Company executives defended the letters Wednesday as necessary, saying a few listeners were harassing advertisers.

Listener Ted Pool said he never expected a letter from a lawyer after he objected to the new morning show on The Blaze (KIBZ-FM 104.1).

“I was in shock,” Pool said. “I didn’t think the letter I wrote was threatening. I was just trying to draw attention to the petition and say I wasn’t pleased with the content of the new show.”


Read more: http://columbustelegram.com/news/local/three-eagles-threatens-to-sue-its-critics/article_0130e014-84a4-11e1-b39a-001a4bcf887a.html#ixzz1sF8GUcYh


So the morale of this story: If you organize a boycott, expect legal action.

[NICO9000]

1. Preposterous

On what grounds do they have cause? Last I heard, you were still able to vote with your pocketbook in this country.

[joeybee12]

2. They have no grounds...but they figure most people will be scared

by this...those listeners need to get a alwyer to send a letter to the station's lawyer.

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. I suspect the bluff ...

grounds would be "unlawful interference with a commercial contract."

But as others have indicated, the boycotts have long been recognized as constitutionally protected conduct.

[NYC Liberal]

4. Even if they were "harassing advertisers" in an actionable way,

the station still wouldn't have grounds - only the advertisers would.

[ck4829]

3. The 1% has tasted neo-feudalism and they will do anything to make it permanent

[HooptieWagon]

5. Nothing inspires listener loyalty like suing them.

<sarcasm> in case its needed. I dont see where they have a leg to stand on, in fact the listeners should be laughing their asses off and showing the letters to the media. The station has truely shot themselves in the foot.

[RedRocco]

8. hey, it worked for Metallica...

[hootinholler]

7. I wonder if they have grounds

To sue the station. I would at least send a letter back saying Please do, I'll see you in court.

[OmahaBlueDog]

9. I suspect they are gambling

They figure the boycotters are amateurs, and that support of a popular morning show would not, in and of itself, be considered "political speech." They also probably figure they have deeper pockets.

OTOH, a civil attorney might look at this as a supression of free speech and sue/countersue.

[Ecumenist]

10. Wait, WHAT??!! Sue your listeners because they decide to BOYCOTT your station?

WTF IS THIS??!! Things are getting CRAZEEEE?? LOL!! And just what do they expect the court to do?

[rustydog]

11. The Advertisers should be complaining about the behavior, they are the ones

being contacted,not the Radio Station.

[Canuckistanian]

12. In the words of the immortal Yogi Berra,

If people don't want to come to the ballpark how are you going to stop them?