zlacker

>>fnbr+(OP)
Non-disparagement clauses seem so petty and pathetic. Really? Your corporation is so fragile and thin-skinned that it can't even withstand someone saying mean words? What's next? Forbidding ex-employees from sticking their tongue at you and saying "nyaa nyaa nyaa?"

>>ryandr+eu
This isn't about pettiness or thin skin. And it's not about mean words. It's about potential valid, corroborated criticism of misconduct.

They can totally deal with appearing petty and thin-skinned.

>>ecjhdn+SL
Wouldnt various whistleblower protections apply if you were reporting illegal activities?

>>parpfi+hR1
Honestly I don't know if whistleblower protections are really worth a damn -- I could be wrong.

But would they not only protect the individual formally blowing the whistle (meeting the standard in the relevant law)?

These non-disparagement clauses would have the effect of laying the groundwork for a whistleblowing effort to fall flat, because nobody else will want to corroborate, when the role of journalism in whistleblowing cases is absolutely crucial.

No sensible mature company needs a lifetime non-disparagement clause -- especially not one that claims to have an ethical focus. It's clearly Omerta.

Whoever downvoted this: seriously. I really don't care but you need to explain to people why lifetime non-disparagement clauses are not about maintaining silence. What's the ethical application for them?