3 ms·

Slightly off-topic, but this article shows what has been tried in some NDAs: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/aug/26/former-weinstein-assistant-urges-ban-

Slightly off-topic, but this article shows what has been tried in some NDAs: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/aug/26/former-weinstein-assistant-urges-ban-contracts-silence-harassment-victims https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/aug/26/former-weinstei... The clauses attached to the Weinstein agreement signed by Perkins offer an insight into how egregious some NDAs can be. She was prohibited from even obtaining a copy of the agreement – she could only look at it supervised at a law firm’s office, a clause that also prevented MPs from acquiring the document. Ultimately she obtained the agreement in June through a personal data request. Its contents confirmed that she was banned from talking to a doctor, therapist or psychoanalyst about Weinstein’s alleged harassment unless they also signed an NDA and that she should not speak about the payment even if HMRC questioned her about it. “If a therapist, for instance, broke the agreement, I would be held responsible for their disclosure. There were guns pointed from every angle,” said Perkins, who has since managed to rebuild her career as a successful associate producer.

raverbashing 8y ago
I really would like to see how banning health care professionals from knowing about a case would fly on the courts (though being in the US you never know). Also how do you prove it? They're under patient confidentiality laws. Still makes me think Weinstein deserves what has come to him.
- acdha 8y ago
  I don’t think they especially care about having a perfect court case so much as making the prospect of a lawsuit so intimidating and expensive that it’s never tested. It’s sleazy abuse of the system but I’m sure it’s effective.
- pimmen 8y ago
  If the judge doesn't throw out the suit and decides to try it, because of that clause alone, the feeling of dread and despair that poor woman would go through is more than enough harm caused.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > I really would like to see how banning health care professionals from knowing about a case would fly on the courts (though being in the US you never know). Also how do you prove it? They're under patient confidentiality laws. There is actually a reason for a clause like that. There is doctor-patient confidentiality, but the patent is allowed to waive it, and has the incentive to do so if they didn't actually want to be bound by the NDA and can use that as an exception. Or if the doctor blabs in violation of doctor-patient confidentiality, the patient would have a claim against the doctor (but no incentive to pursue it) while the party the NDA is protecting wouldn't have a claim against the doctor or the patient. So the NDA has that clause to give them one. There isn't really any way to know if they tell a doctor without an NDA and then the doctor never tells anyone else, but then nobody cares either. The only time it matters is if the doctor does tell other people, and then that's how they know.
  - raverbashing 8y ago
    Ah yes, it's a legal justification, but as the article said, criminal investigations should not be blocked by civil agreements. Ethical-wise I can think of only a couple of acts (usually headline worthy) that look less ethical than that.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > Ah yes, it's a legal justification, but as the article said, criminal investigations should not be blocked by civil agreements. The solution to which is, of course, don't sign them. The settlements are a compromise. The defendant would rather pay money than admit to wrongdoing and the plaintiff would rather be paid a lot of money than have to relive the incident in court, so they come to an agreement. If you take that away, you're leaving the option that neither party preferred over what actually happened -- otherwise either of them could have chosen it to begin with. If the victims don't like that trade off then they can stop agreeing to it. But if they continue to decide it's the right choice for them then who the heck are we to tell them they're wrong?

raverbashing 8y ago

I really would like to see how banning health care professionals from knowing about a case would fly on the courts (though being in the US you never know). Also how do you prove it? They're under patient confidentiality laws. Still makes me think Weinstein deserves what has come to him.

acdha 8y ago
I don’t think they especially care about having a perfect court case so much as making the prospect of a lawsuit so intimidating and expensive that it’s never tested. It’s sleazy abuse of the system but I’m sure it’s effective.
pimmen 8y ago
If the judge doesn't throw out the suit and decides to try it, because of that clause alone, the feeling of dread and despair that poor woman would go through is more than enough harm caused.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> I really would like to see how banning health care professionals from knowing about a case would fly on the courts (though being in the US you never know). Also how do you prove it? They're under patient confidentiality laws. There is actually a reason for a clause like that. There is doctor-patient confidentiality, but the patent is allowed to waive it, and has the incentive to do so if they didn't actually want to be bound by the NDA and can use that as an exception. Or if the doctor blabs in violation of doctor-patient confidentiality, the patient would have a claim against the doctor (but no incentive to pursue it) while the party the NDA is protecting wouldn't have a claim against the doctor or the patient. So the NDA has that clause to give them one. There isn't really any way to know if they tell a doctor without an NDA and then the doctor never tells anyone else, but then nobody cares either. The only time it matters is if the doctor does tell other people, and then that's how they know.
- raverbashing 8y ago
  Ah yes, it's a legal justification, but as the article said, criminal investigations should not be blocked by civil agreements. Ethical-wise I can think of only a couple of acts (usually headline worthy) that look less ethical than that.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > Ah yes, it's a legal justification, but as the article said, criminal investigations should not be blocked by civil agreements. The solution to which is, of course, don't sign them. The settlements are a compromise. The defendant would rather pay money than admit to wrongdoing and the plaintiff would rather be paid a lot of money than have to relive the incident in court, so they come to an agreement. If you take that away, you're leaving the option that neither party preferred over what actually happened -- otherwise either of them could have chosen it to begin with. If the victims don't like that trade off then they can stop agreeing to it. But if they continue to decide it's the right choice for them then who the heck are we to tell them they're wrong?