Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 9065516" data-attributes="member: 15700">It would be nice if an actual lawyer with expertise chimed in, but I can't see how it even passes the smell test.  Think of it like this. ESPN is in financial trouble, and has been doing massive layoffs. Let's say for sake of argument ESPN had to file bankruptcy. According to the argument presented above, ESPN couldn't make a comment about how the new Little Mermaid movie is inspirational for little girls of color (ESPN does have segments on subjects like equality and race) or how they enjoyed the new Indiana Jones movie, since ESPN is owned by Disney. I can't find a single legal definition of comingling that says you can't even mention another company.Oh, I don't disagree with you here. This is less about defending LaNasa, and more of advising caution about losing the high road. I also see risk, because if you go through this thread, there have been accusations from folks without any evidence at all, but speculation based on biased amateur internet sleuthing. And we all know how much Justin likes to "sued" people for that.*To avoid any misunderstanding, I'm not telling people they should or shouldn't do anything. I'm only expressing how that might not be a good idea.</blockquote>