Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

She signed a severance agreement with a non-disparagement clause.  How did she ever think she was going to publish a book on him? 

Posted
1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

She signed a severance agreement with a non-disparagement clause.  How did she ever think she was going to publish a book on him? 

I mean, the book is published and is a best-seller. You can get it delivered by 8AM tomorrow morning

  • Haha 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I mean, the book is published and is a best-seller. You can get it delivered by 8AM tomorrow morning

That's the thing about non-disparagement clauses.  They can't stop someone from telling the verifiable truth.

Posted
3 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

She signed a severance agreement with a non-disparagement clause.  How did she ever think she was going to publish a book on him? 

The way she did. 

2 hours ago, Firemans4Horn said:

I’m not too active on FB but the time has come to delete my account. The algorithm is absolute trash and Zuckerberg is a human buttplug. 

Hey, used right a buttplug brings pleasure. Zuck? Not so much. He’s more of an enema. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Captain Ron said:

 

The article ends with a great line:

“The more power they grasp,” Wynn-Williams writes of Facebook’s leadership, “the less responsible they become.”

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

The article ends with a great line:

“The more power they grasp,” Wynn-Williams writes of Facebook’s leadership, “the less responsible they become.”

And the less answerable to the rule of law they become.  

They think that's great.  Which it is.  Right up until the point where it's not.  It is in everyone's best interests for the Rule of Law to govern.  There are very, very good reasons to stay inside the lines of the Rule of Law.  Because when you step outside them and say "what the fuck are you going to do about it?", eventually someone steps up and answers your question.

luigi-mangione-2024-12-23.jpg

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
7 hours ago, Captainant said:

I mean, the book is published and is a best-seller. You can get it delivered by 8AM tomorrow morning

Sure. But she had to have realized there would be repercussions. I guess she didn't care.

6 hours ago, Samson's Wig said:

That's the thing about non-disparagement clauses.  They can't stop someone from telling the verifiable truth.

Nope. Non disparagement clauses don't consider truth as a standard. 

Posted
1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

Sure. But she had to have realized there would be repercussions. I guess she didn't care.

Nope. Non disparagement clauses don't consider truth as a standard. 

So exactly what are these repercussions? Do tell? Her book is a NY Times bestseller.

Posted
9 hours ago, Captain Ron said:

So exactly what are these repercussions? Do tell? Her book is a NY Times bestseller.

The repercussions are this legal battle going to arbitration.  It's quite possible she read the room and was banking on this public support.  The risk she's taking is the results are going to go her way.  

Posted
14 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

The repercussions are this legal battle going to arbitration.  It's quite possible she read the room and was banking on this public support.  The risk she's taking is the results are going to go her way.  

A few things here.  Theoretically speaking, truth is no defense against a non-disparagement agreement, but from a policy standpoint (as in voiding the clause) and a factual standpoint, relaying objective facts that may or may not cast a business in a bad light may or may not breach the agreement.  Legally, you can probably bargain away your First Amendment rights, but the public may also have a right to know factual information.  This is a problem with NDAs generally when they concern non-trade-secret/commercial information.

But a couple of the main things is a) they are personal (they don't extend to publishers or republishers if the information is non-defamatory) b) they are enforceable typically only by monetary damages rather than an injunction, which is a possible remedy in trade secret disclosure cases.

Arbitration is kind of an amusing way to have to handle this.  It's private, so that's probably a big win for Zuck and the forum/arbitrator is probably less likely to conclude that enforcement of the clause violates public policy.  But the damages award is likely to be pretty conservative and subject to pretty strict proof (it's hard to causally connect disparagement to actual financial losses, so these usually have liquidated damages clauses, or just purport to force you to return severance).

So, such clauses are kind of nasty, but they're not as effective as employers would like them to be.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
53 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

A few things here.  Theoretically speaking, truth is no defense against a non-disparagement agreement, but from a policy standpoint (as in voiding the clause) and a factual standpoint, relaying objective facts that may or may not cast a business in a bad light may or may not breach the agreement.  Legally, you can probably bargain away your First Amendment rights, but the public may also have a right to know factual information.  This is a problem with NDAs generally when they concern non-trade-secret/commercial information.

But a couple of the main things is a) they are personal (they don't extend to publishers or republishers if the information is non-defamatory) b) they are enforceable typically only by monetary damages rather than an injunction, which is a possible remedy in trade secret disclosure cases.

Arbitration is kind of an amusing way to have to handle this.  It's private, so that's probably a big win for Zuck and the forum/arbitrator is probably less likely to conclude that enforcement of the clause violates public policy.  But the damages award is likely to be pretty conservative and subject to pretty strict proof (it's hard to causally connect disparagement to actual financial losses, so these usually have liquidated damages clauses, or just purport to force you to return severance).

So, such clauses are kind of nasty, but they're not as effective as employers would like them to be.

Thank you for explaining that much more eloquently than my slapdash throwaway sentence. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...