5 ms·

Isn't this restricting speech ? How is this constitutional ?

• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• gruez 5y ago
  People need to read what the first amendment actually says. >Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press NDA isn't a law made by congress, so it's fine.
  • chii 5y ago
    there should be a law to allow whistleblowing through an NDA, if there can be a judgement made where doing so is in the public's interest.
  • handrous 5y ago
    These restrictions are usually held to extend to the states, and from there all the way down to school districts. Basically all government at all levels. States charter corporations. Ergo, elected officials at any level may void corporate NDAs at will. (then again, something along those lines is my solution to most problems involving corporations....)
  • vsskanth 5y ago
    Interesting, so it only restricts what congress can do. I didn't know that. Thanks!
• zepto 5y ago
  The 1st amendment only limits what the government can do to restrict speech.
  • edgyquant 5y ago
    It would seem to me that a public official signing an NDA is the government restricting speech.
    • zepto 5y ago
      It’s not the government doing the restricting.
      • edgyquant 5y ago
        It is a member of the government consenting to a restriction
        • zepto 5y ago
          Which means it is not the government legally restricting people’s freedom to speak.
  • xdennis 5y ago
    The city is the local government.
• Spooky23 5y ago
  It depends on state law. When I worked at a state government agency, we would laugh at companies with these things as freedom of information and other laws have precedence over some NDA. Texas is a weird place, but usually these laws are pretty similar between states. These economic development agencies are making a conscious decision to make this information privileged. I wouldn’t blame the companies for this at all — the government entities are the ones enabling this.