Controversial Gag Order for Court Case in Pennslyvania

[Armstrong 1st MRB]

http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/parenting/...-194638861.html

There is a link to an article I found detailing a case where a whole family, including two kids had a Gag order implaced on them in the settlement terms of a law suit involving several Fracking Companies in Pennslyvania. The Gag order involves them being unable to speak about Shale Gas Drilling or Fracking for the rest of their lives effectively, in exchange for $750,000. Now, I'm a Canadian so this case may not directly effect my country's law, but I'm furious that a Court of any sort in this part of the world that claims to uphold the laws as well as the legislature would allow this.

That family basically sold their freedom of speech along with their kid's for $750,000, they must have been pretty damn desperate to leave that property and get the case settled to take that amount and sign a statement saying that the drilling had no adverse effects on their health(which is bullshit too). I understand their worry for their health and that of their children, but they could have just screwed over every single activist or family that will ever try and press a case against an environmentally hazardous company of any sort, because they've now set a precedent where the companies can now do things like this.

I don't know, it just re-enforces my belief that we all just have a list of temporary privileges in our countries, not rights.

[C. Small 1st MRB]

they were given 750K , they have no right to complain

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

This is setting a precedent? This is a gag order. This happens so often that this isn't even news. In fact, the only real reason this is news is because it concerns fracking.

This is a deal. Plain and simple. This is not revoking 1st Amendment rights. A private company cannot revoke your 1st amendment rights. I, as a private citizen, can use reasonable force to shut your mouth on my property. The 1st Amendment protects you from the government, state or federal. The reason the court is involved is really more to ensure there is no breach of trust with fraudulent intent. Or, in more laymens' terms: The reason the court is involved is to prevent fraud or embezzlement. The article says it best, "Nondisclosure agreements, or gag orders, are routine in many types of settlements." If anything, this is more common than a lawsuit. I mediated a case where a minority was harassed by a security guard, and held against her will in a side-room until the police arrived. The settlement sure as hell included a gag order.

In short, if they decide to break their gag order, which is well within their rights, this gives the fracking company precedence (hey, a reversal!) to reclaim the $750,000. This breach would be in no way a criminal charge unless they are attempting fraud or embezzlement. Therefore, this is not a breach of the 1st Amendment in any way, shape, or interpretation I can assess.

Gag orders are so freakin' routine. Without one, the fracking companies might indeed receive negative PR. But the people involved might lose the ensuing court case, leading to nothing for them in reparations. And that is very scary.

[Armstrong 1st MRB]

This is setting a precedent? This is a gag order. This happens so often that this isn't even news. In fact, the only real reason this is news is because it concerns fracking.

This is a deal. Plain and simple. This is not revoking 1st Amendment rights. A private company cannot revoke your 1st amendment rights. I, as a private citizen, can use reasonable force to shut your mouth on my property. The 1st Amendment protects you from the government, state or federal. The reason the court is involved is really more to ensure there is no breach of trust with fraudulent intent. Or, in more laymens' terms: The reason the court is involved is to prevent fraud or embezzlement. The article says it best, "Nondisclosure agreements, or gag orders, are routine in many types of settlements." If anything, this is more common than a lawsuit. I mediated a case where a minority was harassed by a security guard, and held against her will in a side-room until the police arrived. The settlement sure as hell included a gag order.

In short, if they decide to break their gag order, which is well within their rights, this gives the fracking company precedence (hey, a reversal!) to reclaim the $750,000. This breach would be in no way a criminal charge unless they are attempting fraud or embezzlement. Therefore, this is not a breach of the 1st Amendment in any way, shape, or interpretation I can assess.

Gag orders are so freakin' routine. Without one, the fracking companies might indeed receive negative PR. But the people involved might lose the ensuing court case, leading to nothing for them in reparations. And that is very scary.

Is it routine for the Gag order to extend to kids as well? Sure as hell didn't sound like it from what their Attorney said.

Also, this isn't like these guys assaulted the company property, they filed a law suit against the companies due to rendering their property worthless and causing all sorts of health problems from having the facilities built on their property through an unknown lease. The companies had them sign a statement that says that their drilling facilities caused them no adverse health effects. In conjunction with that Gag order, it basically means that the companies paid them $750,000 just to shut up about them for the rest of their lives.

You think that's a good message for the law to be sending? Pay these guys enough money and they'll just shut up about you forever and turn a blind eye to whatever it is you are doing? Its a ridiculous settlement, and I cannot believe that they took it. Granted, I don't know much about how these types of things are dealt in the U.S. but at the very least it seems strange to me that a settlement would involve enfringing the rights of individuals who cannot even make the legal decision themselves.

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

Is it routine for the Gag order to extend to kids as well? Sure as hell didn't sound like it from what their Attorney said.

Also, this isn't like these guys assaulted the company property, they filed a law suit against the companies due to rendering their property worthless and causing all sorts of health problems from having the facilities built on their property through an unknown lease. The companies had them sign a statement that says that their drilling facilities caused them no adverse health effects. In conjunction with that Gag order, it basically means that the companies paid them $750,000 just to shut up about them for the rest of their lives.

You think that's a good message for the law to be sending? Pay these guys enough money and they'll just shut up about you forever and turn a blind eye to whatever it is you are doing? Its a ridiculous settlement, and I cannot believe that they took it. Granted, I don't know much about how these types of things are dealt in the U.S. but at the very least it seems strange to me that a settlement would involve enfringing the rights of individuals who cannot even make the legal decision themselves.

Please, please, please read some other law cases before typing out more shenanigans that have no point. I will reiterate for the millionth time, nondisclosure agreements are freakin' common. Google NDA and I'll bet you'll start getting a ton of templates to write your own.

When someone is filing a civil lawsuit, they are either looking for money or something to change. It turns out, these people were looking for money! Hey, guess what? They could've not taken the money and blabbed all they want. It could've worked out for the better. They could've gotten with anti-fracking groups, and those groups would've helped build a strong enough case to expose these fracking giants for the evil monsters they are. Or, they know their case isn't very strong. They know that they will probably lose in a civil case against this company. The company, on the other hand, knows that when this case goes public, it's gonna hurt. The negative PR will be heavy. They believe not all PR is good PR. To them, $750,000 will be a fair amount to sweep this under the rug and move on.

They chose to sign an agreement with a private company. The court is only involved to ensure they uphold their end of the bargain. If you argue these kind of deals are unethical, you need to argue every type of plea bargain or settlement is unethical as well. They all have gag orders. Yes, even ones in Canada. "The law" isn't sending a message. "The law" is acting as a impartial arbitrator.

By the way, of course the lawyer says it's out of the ordinary. He's going to say whatever he wants to make it seem out of the ordinary. The more press involved, the more money he can get for the clients.

And as a last point, you've probably already signed a NDA before! Almost every job you get will have some non-disclosure as a part of working there. For example, during my tenure at the largest electronics retailer in America, it was forbidden to discuss the employee discount with non-employees. Doing so is grounds for punishment up to and including instant termination. Employees of KFC can't discuss the Colonel's secret recipe to outsiders. That's a firin'! That's not against the 1st Amendment. Sports teams very often have the infamous "character clause" for their athletes. If I was playing for the Houston Astros (a private baseball team), and I went and spouted some racist nonsense, the team would be within their rights to terminate the contract just on those grounds. They wouldn't have to make an argument that it was hurting ticket sales which breached some other point on the contract. They can just point to the character clause. Racism isn't illegal. It's stupid, but not illegal.

As a homework assignment, find me examples of NDAs you've signed. Don't be shy, they're everywhere!

[Armstrong 1st MRB]

Of course NDAs aren't illegal and settlements are not illegal, I never claimed they were. I have problems with the ethics involved in inhibiting freedom of speech on people going against businesses that desire to try and cover up the fact that their business is destroying the environment and devaluing property as part of a settlement for a law suit.

Look, the point I'm making isn't that Gag orders are out of the ordinary, its the fact that this involved having the kids involved with it as well is. These kids are minors who have no legal authority to make their own decisions, and the companies are making the parents sign a Gag order on them as part of the bargain.

How the hell are they going to enforce it? Have their agents tail the kids to and from the school yard? Have the Government keep track of them through listening drones? Sarcasm aside, what's the point in including them? Save them the trouble of doing it in the future, so they'll buy the Gag order for them now when they have no control over it? How about they just buy Gag orders right away for every kid of every family who is involved in environmental activism just to save themselves more money and time in the future?

I don't care whether or not these types of Gag orders for environmental law suits are common or not, if they are common then that scares me. I've got ethical issues with the practice if that is how it is done; how can anyone put a price on another person's freedom of speech? I don't think its the right way we should look at dealing with minors in regards to cases like this.

That's the only thing that matters in this case, I've seen enough ridiculous cases like this from Monsanto and up here with Fargo to know that the law doesn't give a shit about the environment or the public's health for that matter unless enough people get pissed off about it. I'm just concerned about how they're dealing with children's rights or soon-to-be rights when they come of age.

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

So to end your entire argument is as easy as not getting the article from "Yahoo Shine"

via Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, if you please.

Updated sources! Yay!

[Armstrong 1st MRB]

So to end your entire argument is as easy as not getting the article from "Yahoo Shine"

via Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, if you please.

Well, don't I look like a fool. All the more reason for me to not trust media sources of any sort without seeing others. Thank you for the link, Capt. Kirkendall; you're right in that it effectively kills this debate.

Regardless, I still don't like the idea of gaging environmental activists who are right in their protests and law suits just to secure company reputations and profits when they are walking down the same road to another case like this regardless, but that's just my personal opinion and not something to argue with or about with somebody else.

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]