7 ms·
> I don’t really want some arbitrary govt limit restricting what private parties can do with each other. Given that this runs tangential with whistleblowing an
by johnnyanmac 7mo ago
> I don’t really want some arbitrary govt limit restricting what private parties can do with each other.
Given that this runs tangential with whistleblowing and free speech, this is exactly where I want a government to draw a line.
- wavemode 7mo agoBut it was a severance agreement. She accepted a sum of money for agreeing to not disparage. You don't see anything wrong with someone knowingly accepting these funds, and then turning around and immediately violating the agreement by writing a book (making even more money in the process)? If it's about whistleblowing and doing the right thing, why not just refuse the money?
- throwaway173738 7mo agoThere should be a statute of limitations on this stuff. Otherwise we’ll see things like chemical plant employees who signed such an agreement keeping stories of dumping to their deathbeds.
- prepend 7mo agoOr, hopefully, not signing such agreements and accepting such payments. Disclosing illegal activities cannot be silenced by these agreements.
- ab5tract 7mo agoIn a better world, disparagement would not legally refer to the dissemination of factual accounts. In such a world it would only add to penalties for proven libel. It’s a pretty simple concept: if the truth hurts, you’ve got no one but yourself to blame. NDAs theoretically should never be able to paper over illegal actions. In a similar vein, non disparagement clauses should not be able to paper over the publication of legitimate insider experience of terrible — even if legal — behavior.