Given that this runs tangential with whistleblowing and free speech, this is exactly where I want a government to draw a line.
If it's about whistleblowing and doing the right thing, why not just refuse the money?
In such a world it would only add to penalties for proven libel.
It’s a pretty simple concept: if the truth hurts, you’ve got no one but yourself to blame.
NDAs theoretically should never be able to paper over illegal actions. In a similar vein, non disparagement clauses should not be able to paper over the publication of legitimate insider experience of terrible — even if legal — behavior.
And NDAs and similar, with their entire purpose being restricting speech, should also be restricted pretty strongly.
Governments could just not help them do that.
Everyone is aware of that.
> I don't really want some arbitrary govt limit restricting what private parties can do with each other.
Great! Then you surely don't want the government to censor this author if she were to criticize Meta, a.k.a., "enforcing the non-disparagement agreement".
If I'm wrong, and you do think it should be enforced, then my alternative response is this: You are confused. It is the enforcement of the non-disaparagement agreement that is the government limitation and restriction of private parties.
I'm a staunch defender of civil liberties, so I think the government should stay out this affair by declaring the agreement to be unenforceable.
