zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. whatsh+(OP)[view] [source] 2021-03-29 00:25:40
The problem with this NDA plan is that it cuts all the way to stopping speech about legitimate abuses.
replies(1): >>lr4444+H2
◧
2. lr4444+H2[view] [source] 2021-03-29 00:51:44
>>whatsh+(OP)
IANAL, but an NDA I think is a civil contract. Civil contracts are not valid to sign away your rights or enable otherwise criminal/misdemeanor behavior.
replies(2): >>kelnos+h8 >>Phlarp+Z8
◧◩
3. kelnos+h8[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-29 01:49:16
>>lr4444+H2
Right, but giving someone advice based on a sexist view isn't a crime, so someone who signed this NDA and then got sexist advice wouldn't have any legal grounds to break the NDA.
◧◩
4. Phlarp+Z8[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-29 01:57:43
>>lr4444+H2
IANAL, but I suspect it's still going to cost lawyer amounts of money to defend yourself against the other party saying you broke NDA.

I always assumed that was the point of the document to begin with.

[go to top]