Non-disparagement clauses (common for executives) are clauses found in contracts that just state you can't say anything bad about the company, doesn't matter if it's true or not. Some examples here: https://contracts.justia.com/contract-clauses/non-disparagem...

I think it's a case where the law should simply say such clauses are not enforcible.

▲ jordanb 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Non disparagement clauses are put in every severance agreement in the US as a matter of course. It's not just for executives. They'll put it in the severance agreement of a sandwich artist in exchange for one more paycheck -- or sometimes in exchange for nothing at all: "mutual non-disparagement"

▲ ndriscoll 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Clearly the solution is to write everything you have to say through an ancap lens and make it sound as if you think they were really smart for doing all the things they did.

▲

sroussey 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Clearly the solution is not to try and get it both ways—money for disparaging and money for not disparaging. Most people choose one, not both.

	▲	ndriscoll 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe, but if you couldn't rationalize whatever makes you the most money being ethical then you probably wouldn't take a job at a place like Facebook in the first place. Conveniently, that makes it easy to write your praise. It doesn't take much to go from "demographics like 'teenage girls with body insecurities' want relevant ads like beauty products! We're helping consumers to satisfy their needs!" to "showing teen girls aspirational images that drive them to buy beauty products (and happen to drive insecurities) is just helping them reach their potential! We're helping consumers to uncover needs they didn't know they had!" Wherever your comfort line was to decide to work there, you can probably drive it a little further with similar reasoning.

▲ mystraline 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In the UK, even the truth isn't a sufficient defense for libel or slander.

The fact that you can't speak the 100% truth, and not get sued there is quite disgusting. The truth should always be permitted speech.

▲

ShroudedNight 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Is this still true, post Defamation Act 2013?

	▲	ljf 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, truth is a defence now.

▲

77pt77 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is actually the norm throughout the world.

The law doesn't give a shit about truth but it only cares about keeping thing running smoothly as they currently are.

▲

bluecalm 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Same in many EU countries. Poland and Germany are two examples. For example if someone robs you (or do worse things to you) and you call them out publicly you can be liable if you can't prove it happened.

In practice the law defends the offenders. You can't speak up if you don't have a hard proof. I think it's ridiculous but so is a lot of civil law. Americans often don't appreciate how well they have it in comparison.

	▲	77pt77 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> you can be liable if you can't prove it happened. Even if you can prove in many places. Also if someone robs your house and gets hurt due to some noncompliance on your part they can sue you and win.

▲

varelse 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲ nickpsecurity 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's basically a ban on exposing evil to protect the money of those committing the evil. God commands us to expose, correct, and punish evil. That makes for a better society.

So, reporting evil should always be allowed.

▲ 77pt77 9 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲ nickpsecurity 3 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲ 77pt77 an hour ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲ tomhow an hour ago | parent [-]

You can't comment like this on HN, no matter who or what you're replying to.

The guidelines ask us all to be kind; they're the first words in the "In Comments" section: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

	▲	77pt77 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I am being kind. Enabeling his clear delusion would be cruel. His "biographical" website [1] even mentions that: >"you'd immediately know it was supernatural event or you just developed mental illness. I couldn't rule out mental illness" His own words. Cruelty is enabling clearly psychotic behavior. He seems to have some self-awareness and hopefully it's not too late... `[1] https://www.gethisword.com/mystory.html`