She didn’t have to agree to the contract. I don’t really want some arbitrary govt limit restricting what private parties can do with each other.

▲

lokar 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I’m certain that if these clauses were banned, exactly zero contracts that would otherwise have been agreed would be abandoned. They are completely one sided, and superfluous to the goals of the contract.

▲

Dylan16807 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I very much want the government restricting employment-related contracts myself.

And NDAs and similar, with their entire purpose being restricting speech, should also be restricted pretty strongly.

▲

roywiggins 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The only way these sorts of contracts can be enforced is if private parties have recourse to government powers- civil courts- to enforce them.

Governments could just not help them do that.

▲

johnnyanmac 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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 4 hours ago | parent [-]

But 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 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There 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.