Remix.run Logo
SauntSolaire 11 hours ago

That would also preclude non-disclosure agreements. I'm curious if you also find those unreasonable?

dragonwriter 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Both non-disparagement and non-disclosure agreements should—just as many jurisdictions have for non-compete agreements, which do not even implicate free speech the way the others do—be sharply limited as a matter of public policy (non-disparagement even moreso than non-disclosure.) Both are routinely used to inflict public harm for private gain, and government enforcement of either is in tension with freedom of speech; while there is a legitimate case to be made that non-disclosure agreements within certain bounds have a certain degree of necessity in enabling legitimate business, this is a much harder case to make for non-disparagement agreements, at least for ones that are not temporally bounded within an active business relationship.

FpUser 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Depends on what type of non-disclosure. Disclosing technical guarded and not publicly known technical know-how - I am ok with those. Disclosing that boss treats people like trash should be allowed and I think lawmakers should have enough intelligence in their brains to make laws accordingly.

wtallis 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Disclosing technical guarded and not publicly known technical know-how - I am ok with those.

I would love to see NDAs for trade secrets limited in a way that incentivizes companies to rely on patent protection instead, where the system is set up to ensure that knowledge eventually becomes public record and freely usable by anyone. It would be very interesting to see how eg. the tech industry would change if trade secret protection were limited to a meaningfully shorter duration than patents.

SauntSolaire 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I get that you're not a free speech maximalist, but that's still signing away a basic freedom.