Despite being distributed through the Comcast cable network, Sean “Puff Daddy” Combs sides with Byron Allen on his Supreme Court case. Diddy in a statement says that Comcast will regret in the long-haul pushing this case through.
He believes that they are “choosing to be on the wrong side of history.”
One might wonder why would he go against what could be seen as his partner? The truth of the matter is… maybe Puff doesn’t want to be seen as a puppet!
That’s right. Comcast has been using Revolt (owned by Puff) as an example of their commitment to diversity. The Bad Boy exec did not take kindly to being their one token Black guy (well one of two token Black guys since Magic Johnson is a part of the ownership of Aspire).
Diddy provided this statement:
“On REVOLT, I can only share the truth of my experience. Starting an independent cable network is incredibly difficult and capital intensive. The start we received from Comcast, which was a condition of the United States government approval for Comcast to acquire NBCUniversal, was important, but it is not the level of support needed to build a successful African American owned network. Not even close.”
“My goal has always been to achieve true economic inclusion for Black people. How can Comcast suggest that it champions diversity and inclusion if it attacks the laws that provide the foundation for economic inclusion?”
“In its efforts to get the lawsuit filed by Byron Allen dismissed, Comcast has taken a legal approach that could weaken fundamental civil rights protections. I have a problem with this. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 section 1981 was designed to ensure Black people are able to do business in this country and not be denied because of race.”
As reported previously, Byron Allen and Entertainment Studio is suing Comcast/ Charter, charging that the company will not distribute their networks because they are Black-owned. The statue that Byron Allen’s team is using is the Civil Rights Act of 1866, a law that protects Black and Brown people from contractual discrimination. While the suit was preparing to go to the United States Supreme Court, President Trump’s DOJ issued an amicus brief stating that a “but for” clause should be applied to The Act- meaning that you have to actually say “Black” or someone’s race to prove that discrimination in the contract (withholding one, etc.) was the sole reason that someone was rejected in business.
The case went to court on Nov. 13th and is now being considered by the high court.
Shout out to Puff for doing and stating what is right, versus what might make the most business sense. #StillWaitingOnMSNBCToSpeakOut