4 ms·
You can speak, just not about privileged information. With non-competes the most honorable thing they can claim is that they don't want you taking expertise the
by TallGuyShort 9y ago
You can speak, just not about privileged information. With non-competes the most honorable thing they can claim is that they don't want you taking expertise they probably helped pay for you to get (either on-the-job or otherwise) and have someone else benefit from it. But really I think most of us would agree that restricting someone's right to use their own qualifications is overly broad. A better solution to that concern would be that they pay for training, if necessary, and you pay some of it back based on how much longer you remain in their employ, similar to some relocation agreements.
Not discussing confidential material shared with you on condition of your employer with an NDA is quite similar IMO to not sharing material information about a company's health days before their public earnings call. 1st amendment rights are not absolute. I'm not allowed to engage in libel, yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc. I think abiding by NDA's about internal, confidential information is analagous and helps promote real, fair competition.
- logfromblammo 9y agoYou just had to do it, didn't you? Every time you say, "yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater," a civil rights lawyer is forced to kick a puppy.
- CodeMage 9y agoCare to elaborate? Genuinely curious here.
- chilldream 9y agoIt was coined by a judge attempting to justify legal censorship of someone protesting the existence of the draft. https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
- CodeMage 9y agoThanks. I didn't know about the historical context of that argument and it turned out to be quite important.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- TallGuyShort 9y agoWell that is the textbook case of 1st amendment rights not being absolute.
- dragonwriter 9y agoWell, no, it's dicta in the textbook case—Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)—of the Supreme Court getting swept aside by security hysteria and failing to protect the First Amendment; a decision whose substance was overruled by Brandenburg v. U.S., 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
- TallGuyShort 9y agoI stand corrected, thank you. I recall being told specifically in 7th grade social studies that that was an actual case in the 1920's where someone did yell fire. I'm aware of other cases where the court decision was, "here's a ridiculous extreme we obviously wouldn't go to, so obviously let's just rule that it doesn't apply at all," and I hate it, so I'll stop using this :)