3 ms·
SEC doesn't have the power to unilaterally silence someone, and that isn't what's happening here. The story told here is about settlements. These settlements ar
by advisedwang 4y ago
SEC doesn't have the power to unilaterally silence someone, and that isn't what's happening here. The story told here is about settlements. These settlements are agreed by both parties and supervised by a judge. The first amendment doesn't prevent you agreeing to silence in exchange for ending a legal proceeding.
FWIW the term "gag order" usually refers to a court order (ie from a judge) not discuss an in-progress proceeding. It's a bit of a misleading title.
- tarakat 4y ago> SEC doesn't have the power to unilaterally silence someone No, but it does have all the power of the State to legally threaten and prosecute people. Do we want state agencies using their power to threaten people into silence? How does that help fulfill SEC's stated mission? Again, how would you feel if criminal plea deals came with NDAs? Would that destruction of transparency improve the justice system? If not, why is it a good idea for the SEC to do so?
- advisedwang 4y ago> criminal plea deals came with NDAs The article says: > A nonnegotiable term of that settlement, and all SEC settlement agreements, is that Bob must never publicly profess his innocence I am comfortable with a criminal plea deal not allowing someone to say they are innocent. In fact my understanding is plea deals generally include admission of guilt (to a lesser crime).
- tarakat 4y ago> I am comfortable with a criminal plea deal not allowing someone to say they are innocent. I am not. How are we then to learn about corrupt prosecutors?