| ▲ | maximinus_thrax 11 hours ago |
| > "non-disparagement" clause Do you believe a civil contract should be able to stop a person from disclosing potential illegal activities? |
|
| ▲ | BeetleB 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I doubt such clauses can prevent you from disclosing them to relevant authorities. Disclosing them to the public is a whole other matter. |
| |
| ▲ | ipython 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s funny as I see this argument from people who at the same time excuse Snowden for publicly exposing government surveillance overreach when he had similar tools (disclosure to relevant authorities) available to him. | | |
| ▲ | BeetleB a minute ago | parent [-] | | Legitimate whistleblowing has rules. I doubt publishing a book counts as whistleblowing. |
| |
| ▲ | amtamt 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "disclosing them to relevant authorities" would not bring the message to those affected by such carelessness. I would think "Disclosing them to the public" brings more awareness in the public, and though might be illegal, serves better for public good.
Legal is not always just or moral. | |
| ▲ | Esophagus4 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s kind of murky. NLRB under Biden seemed to say that yeah you can disclose this to the media, and broad non-disparagements are unenforceable. But it’s also kind of a toss up depending on the NLRB, courts, administration, etc. Trump’s NLRB has rescinded a bunch of that Biden-era guidance, so what is enforceable and what isn’t? Kind of hard to say at this point. Arbitration agreed with Meta, but who knows what courts would say. https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/nlrb-requires-change... https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2226/2025-0... |
|
|
| ▲ | prepend 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In the US, a contract can’t supersede laws like those that protect whistleblowers. (I think this is part of how Harvey Weinstein was prosecuted because his NDAs were found invalid) The author didnt disclose any illegal activities in her book. And she didnt claim whistleblower status. |
| |
| ▲ | mathgeek 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Not in the book directly, but she did accuse them of securities fraud prior to publication: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/15/whistl... | |
| ▲ | maximinus_thrax 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The author didnt disclose any illegal activities in her book. And she didnt claim whistleblower status. Both statements are factually incorrect. > Wynn-William filed a whistleblower complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission in April 2024 and with the Department of Justice in 2025, according to her filing. Also, here's a short but not comprehensive (read the book when it came out and I forget things) list of the sledged illegal activities described in the book: - Collusion with the chinese authorities - Securities fraud - Illegal foreign political contributions - Sexual harassment and workplace retaliation I don't know the reasons for why there has been no enforcement/further investigations aside from some congressional circus, especially when Zuck was caught lying to Congress. But I would be willing to bet that they involve money in politics. |
|
|
| ▲ | mikkupikku 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don't think such clauses have ever been held to prevent people from testifying in criminal trials. Signing book deals on the other hand... If it's true that she signed a severance deal, e.g. signed this when she was leaving and therefore already knew she was agreeing to protect a bunch of snakes.. Well she fucked up. At the point when she signed that agreement she was already informed and aware of what kind of people she was agreeing to not disparage. |
| |
| ▲ | everybodyknows 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Still looking for the part where, in acknowledgement of her own culpability, she assigns all book royalties to some charity that, say, provides counseling to troubled teenagers ... | | |
| ▲ | ipython 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | So she’s expected to not only put her own financial life in jeopardy to publish this information, but then to take the money that she does have and donate it all to charity? One has to live. And there are not a lot of commercial enterprises that pay well that will hire someone who publicly flaunts an employment or severance contract. Give her a break. It’s amazing how many nits we have to pick with those with little power when they choose to exercise it, that we end up excusing wholesale abuses of power by those who actually monopolize it. | |
| ▲ | maximinus_thrax 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There are a lot of defenders of capital on hn, which is expected, that's totally fine. But I think we should all have a bit of admiration for someone who risked her life to shed light into the internals of an arguably sick business entity. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | raincole 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| At the end the book is published. |
|
| ▲ | charcircuit 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I do. Illegal activities can be dealt with by the legal system without needing to be publicized first. |
| |
