For those who claim to be free speech absolutists

[Benjamin Frank]

Why aren't you demanding that non disclosure agreements be banned? Why aren't you lobbying for non disclosure agreements to be banned?

It's especially easy for 'free speech' advocates like the Koch Brothers and Rupert Murdoch to wax philosophically about the wonders of 'free speech' when they prevent their employees and those who settle law suits with them to not say anything negative or potentially harmful about their companies.

If you really think free speech is so great, then don't constrain your employees or those who have sued you from telling the world what they know about your companies.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This doesn't directly answer your question, but there was a bill signed into law a few months ago that banned NDAs for sexual harassment and for some reason didn't attract much news coverage.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Non disclosure agreements are agreements between private citizens. Free speech absolutism is about opposition to government restriction of speech. NDAs do not involve government restriction of speech, so they do not contradict free speech absolutism.

Separately, free speech absolutism doesn't mean that every word said on every topic is good. It means that private citizens have an absolute right to free expression. Most free speech absolutists still acknowledge that libel and slander laws have justification. Even those that don't would agree that lies or divulgements of certain private information (like a proprietary formula) can be bad. NDAs serve a valuable purpose insofar as they can help private citizens discuss and share information freely without fear of that information being reshared.

[Skill and Chance]

Non disclosure agreements are agreements between private citizens. Free speech absolutism is about opposition to government restriction of speech. NDAs do not involve government restriction of speech, so they do not contradict free speech absolutism.

Separately, free speech absolutism doesn't mean that every word said on every topic is good. It means that private citizens have an absolute right to free expression. Most free speech absolutists still acknowledge that libel and slander laws have justification. Even those that don't would agree that lies or divulgements of certain private information (like a proprietary formula) can be bad. NDAs serve a valuable purpose insofar as they can help private citizens discuss and share information freely without fear of that information being reshared.

Yes, free speech applies to the government and sometimes to government funded institutions.  If a private organization wants you to agree to limit what you can say about them in exchange for money, membership, or employment, that isn't a 1st Amendment issue.  It's a reasonable part of freedom of contract, and it often goes both ways, protecting the individual from being badmouthed by the organization.

*In the specific case where an NDA prohibits a victim of a crime or civil rights violation from describing the alleged activity, I agree that should be outlawed. 

[Benjamin Frank]

Non disclosure agreements are agreements between private citizens. Free speech absolutism is about opposition to government restriction of speech. NDAs do not involve government restriction of speech, so they do not contradict free speech absolutism.

Separately, free speech absolutism doesn't mean that every word said on every topic is good. It means that private citizens have an absolute right to free expression. Most free speech absolutists still acknowledge that libel and slander laws have justification. Even those that don't would agree that lies or divulgements of certain private information (like a proprietary formula) can be bad. NDAs serve a valuable purpose insofar as they can help private citizens discuss and share information freely without fear of that information being reshared.

Yes, free speech applies to the government and sometimes to government funded institutions.  If a private organization wants you to agree to limit what you can say about them in exchange for money, membership, or employment, that isn't a 1st Amendment issue.  It's a reasonable part of freedom of contract, and it often goes both ways, protecting the individual from being badmouthed by the organization.

*In the specific case where an NDA prohibits a victim of a crime or civil rights violation from describing the alleged activity, I agree that should be outlawed.  

I didn't mention censorship. For instance, when the private publishing company was going to alter Roald Dahl's books, that wasn't censorship either, but some people called it 'woke' and an OUTRAGE!

Contrary to what you claim, this is hardly an area of two equal participants in a contract, and non disclosure agreements generally benefit large corporations at the expense of workers, consumers and society in general.

They also inherently limit free speech and though not the government directly censoring speech, it is government institutions, the legal system, that is used to enforce NDAs.

[Skill and Chance]

Non disclosure agreements are agreements between private citizens. Free speech absolutism is about opposition to government restriction of speech. NDAs do not involve government restriction of speech, so they do not contradict free speech absolutism.

Separately, free speech absolutism doesn't mean that every word said on every topic is good. It means that private citizens have an absolute right to free expression. Most free speech absolutists still acknowledge that libel and slander laws have justification. Even those that don't would agree that lies or divulgements of certain private information (like a proprietary formula) can be bad. NDAs serve a valuable purpose insofar as they can help private citizens discuss and share information freely without fear of that information being reshared.

Yes, free speech applies to the government and sometimes to government funded institutions.  If a private organization wants you to agree to limit what you can say about them in exchange for money, membership, or employment, that isn't a 1st Amendment issue.  It's a reasonable part of freedom of contract, and it often goes both ways, protecting the individual from being badmouthed by the organization.

*In the specific case where an NDA prohibits a victim of a crime or civil rights violation from describing the alleged activity, I agree that should be outlawed. 

I didn't mention censorship. For instance, when the private publishing company was going to alter Roald Dahl's books, that wasn't censorship either, but people called it 'woke' and an OUTRAGE!

Contrary to what you claim, this is hardly an area of two equal participants in a contract, and non disclosure agreements generally benefit large corporations at the expense of workers, consumers and society in general.

Members of Private Group X need a method to speak in confidence with each other or the economy will no function.  Patents and copyrights might as well not exist if you can't have NDAs for intellectual property.   I agree contracts can be abused, but as long as it can' be used to cover up actual crimes, this isn't anything like non-competes or training recapture agreements or other abuses.  If you invented something valuable, would you want the blueprints/formula on the internet tomorrow? 

Even within the government, there is a rough equivalent in classified information.

[Benjamin Frank]

Non disclosure agreements are agreements between private citizens. Free speech absolutism is about opposition to government restriction of speech. NDAs do not involve government restriction of speech, so they do not contradict free speech absolutism.

Separately, free speech absolutism doesn't mean that every word said on every topic is good. It means that private citizens have an absolute right to free expression. Most free speech absolutists still acknowledge that libel and slander laws have justification. Even those that don't would agree that lies or divulgements of certain private information (like a proprietary formula) can be bad. NDAs serve a valuable purpose insofar as they can help private citizens discuss and share information freely without fear of that information being reshared.

Yes, free speech applies to the government and sometimes to government funded institutions.  If a private organization wants you to agree to limit what you can say about them in exchange for money, membership, or employment, that isn't a 1st Amendment issue.  It's a reasonable part of freedom of contract, and it often goes both ways, protecting the individual from being badmouthed by the organization.

*In the specific case where an NDA prohibits a victim of a crime or civil rights violation from describing the alleged activity, I agree that should be outlawed. 

I didn't mention censorship. For instance, when the private publishing company was going to alter Roald Dahl's books, that wasn't censorship either, but people called it 'woke' and an OUTRAGE!

Contrary to what you claim, this is hardly an area of two equal participants in a contract, and non disclosure agreements generally benefit large corporations at the expense of workers, consumers and society in general.

Members of Private Group X need a method to speak in confidence with each other or the economy will no function.  Patents and copyrights might as well not exist if you can't have NDAs for intellectual property.   I agree contracts can be abused, but as long as it can' be used to cover up actual crimes, this isn't anything like non-competes or training recapture agreements or other abuses.  If you invented something valuable, would you want the blueprints/formula on the internet tomorrow? 

Even within the government, there is a rough equivalent in classified information.

Non compete agreements do cover up actual crimes and civil law suits.

[Skill and Chance]

Non disclosure agreements are agreements between private citizens. Free speech absolutism is about opposition to government restriction of speech. NDAs do not involve government restriction of speech, so they do not contradict free speech absolutism.

Separately, free speech absolutism doesn't mean that every word said on every topic is good. It means that private citizens have an absolute right to free expression. Most free speech absolutists still acknowledge that libel and slander laws have justification. Even those that don't would agree that lies or divulgements of certain private information (like a proprietary formula) can be bad. NDAs serve a valuable purpose insofar as they can help private citizens discuss and share information freely without fear of that information being reshared.

Yes, free speech applies to the government and sometimes to government funded institutions.  If a private organization wants you to agree to limit what you can say about them in exchange for money, membership, or employment, that isn't a 1st Amendment issue.  It's a reasonable part of freedom of contract, and it often goes both ways, protecting the individual from being badmouthed by the organization.

*In the specific case where an NDA prohibits a victim of a crime or civil rights violation from describing the alleged activity, I agree that should be outlawed. 

I didn't mention censorship. For instance, when the private publishing company was going to alter Roald Dahl's books, that wasn't censorship either, but people called it 'woke' and an OUTRAGE!

Contrary to what you claim, this is hardly an area of two equal participants in a contract, and non disclosure agreements generally benefit large corporations at the expense of workers, consumers and society in general.

Members of Private Group X need a method to speak in confidence with each other or the economy will no function.  Patents and copyrights might as well not exist if you can't have NDAs for intellectual property.   I agree contracts can be abused, but as long as it can' be used to cover up actual crimes, this isn't anything like non-competes or training recapture agreements or other abuses.  If you invented something valuable, would you want the blueprints/formula on the internet tomorrow? 

Even within the government, there is a rough equivalent in classified information.

Non compete agreements do cover up actual crimes and civil law suits.

I am 100% opposed to non-compete agreements for individuals paid less than $1M per year by the company imposing the non-compete.  It was intended to be specifically for senior executives.

[Benjamin Frank]

Non disclosure agreements are agreements between private citizens. Free speech absolutism is about opposition to government restriction of speech. NDAs do not involve government restriction of speech, so they do not contradict free speech absolutism.

Separately, free speech absolutism doesn't mean that every word said on every topic is good. It means that private citizens have an absolute right to free expression. Most free speech absolutists still acknowledge that libel and slander laws have justification. Even those that don't would agree that lies or divulgements of certain private information (like a proprietary formula) can be bad. NDAs serve a valuable purpose insofar as they can help private citizens discuss and share information freely without fear of that information being reshared.

Yes, free speech applies to the government and sometimes to government funded institutions.  If a private organization wants you to agree to limit what you can say about them in exchange for money, membership, or employment, that isn't a 1st Amendment issue.  It's a reasonable part of freedom of contract, and it often goes both ways, protecting the individual from being badmouthed by the organization.

*In the specific case where an NDA prohibits a victim of a crime or civil rights violation from describing the alleged activity, I agree that should be outlawed.  

I didn't mention censorship. For instance, when the private publishing company was going to alter Roald Dahl's books, that wasn't censorship either, but people called it 'woke' and an OUTRAGE!

Contrary to what you claim, this is hardly an area of two equal participants in a contract, and non disclosure agreements generally benefit large corporations at the expense of workers, consumers and society in general.

Members of Private Group X need a method to speak in confidence with each other or the economy will no function.  Patents and copyrights might as well not exist if you can't have NDAs for intellectual property.   I agree contracts can be abused, but as long as it can' be used to cover up actual crimes, this isn't anything like non-competes or training recapture agreements or other abuses.  If you invented something valuable, would you want the blueprints/formula on the internet tomorrow?  

Even within the government, there is a rough equivalent in classified information.

Non compete agreements do cover up actual crimes and civil law suits.

I am 100% opposed to non-compete agreements for individuals paid less than $1M per year by the company imposing the non-compete.  It was intended to be specifically for senior executives.

I'm confusing myself, sorry. I meant non disclosure agreements do cover up crimes and civil law suits. There is a whistleblower protection law for the covering up of crimes, but it doesn't prevent severe legal threats against employees who have signed NDAs.

And obviously employees aren't told about whistleblower protection laws or how to access them.

[Torie]

I take it a free speech absolutist is one that wishes to expand the 1st Amendment beyond state action to private action, and swamp rights to privacy and everything else.

I am not such a person, even though I take a pretty  hard line on 1st Amendment state action issues.

Without non disclosure agreements, many cases would be harder to settle. The ying and the yang.

[Benjamin Frank]

I take it a free speech absolutist is one that wishes to expand the 1st Amendment beyond state action to private action, and swamp rights to privacy and everything else.

I am not such a person, even though I take a pretty  hard line on 1st Amendment state action issues.

Without non disclosure agreements, many cases would be harder to settle. The ying and the yang.

They would be, at least at first. Lawyers and plaintiffs and defendants would adjust and the public would gain valuable knowledge regarding faulty products, corporate malfeasence and the like.

I'm aware there are other issues of large corporations using their greater wealth to force plaintiffs to settle, there needs to be wholesale reform of civil trials to go along with banning NDAs in civil law suits. Anti SLAPP legislation is one example.

This doesn't address all the issues, but, for example:
https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/11/the-supreme-court-and-the-pro-business-paradox/

and in the Canadian context
https://www.canadaland.com/julie-macfarlane-campaign-to-end-nondisclosure-agreements/
Law professor Julie Macfarlane wants legislation to limit the use of nondisclosure agreements as an all-purpose muzzle

To add to a previous point. Libel and slander is an interesting exception to free speech, especially since they are also mostly used by wealthy and/or powerful (though to be fair, it can be argued they are the most likely to be defamed.)  The general argument against government censorship is 'the best argument against bad speech is good speech, not banning speech.'

If that's the case in general, I fail to see why that wouldn't also apply to defamation. You've been defamed? Then use your speech to tell the world the truth, don't come whining to the government (through using the courts for a civil law suit.)

There are many inconsistencies when it comes to arguments about free speech and the reality is they usually benefit the wealthy and/or the powerful.

[Vosem]

Why aren't you demanding that non disclosure agreements be banned? Why aren't you lobbying for non disclosure agreements to be banned?

It's especially easy for 'free speech' advocates like the Koch Brothers and Rupert Murdoch to wax philosophically about the wonders of 'free speech' when they prevent their employees and those who settle law suits with them to not say anything negative or potentially harmful about their companies.

If you really think free speech is so great, then don't constrain your employees or those who have sued you from telling the world what they know about your companies.

I think, in the abstract, it's perfectly fair for people to support free speech rights but also think NDAs are fine, much as people can support gun rights but also think it's fine for individual people to choose to be pacifists. Rights are not privileges to be taken away at a whim, but nor are they commands that must be obeyed at every second. I think NDAs are probably bad in a vague sort of way -- it is probably true that they are part of a culture which doesn't make free speech its highest priority -- but it also doesn't seem like they're very much of a threat to self-expression, maybe except where they are abused by cults like Scientologists.

In general, people who take whatever course of action is best for them within a system, but also support actions that make that course of action harder (or even impossible) for others to take based on their ideals, are not being hypocrites. There's nothing wrong in particular with receiving welfare benefits while advocating for those benefits to be cut. (In fact in a democracy one rather expects every sector to advocate cuts for all other sectors and benefits for itself, so there is a majority for cuts in every sector. This relies on people having a firm oppositional stance to 'special interests'.) Similarly, there is nothing in particular wrong with advocating for free speech rights throughout society and making your own employees sign NDAs. (Ceterum censeo we need thousands more Koch brothers and every single person in society to adopt their attitudes, but that goes without saying.)

[Mr. Reactionary]

If you possess a right, logically you possess the general ability to waive your right, whether it be in exchange for money or otherwise.