Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Texas

unblock

(54,255 posts)

2. Sounds like a prior restraint to me.

Reply to Susan Calvin (Original post)

Mon May 16, 2022, 10:44 AM

May 2022

Not a lawyer, I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but I think it's a problem trying to regulate speech before that fact.

Especially as it's regulating content -- if they banned all talk with the media, that's one thing. They could argue they want a centralized, coordinated media presence.

But here, they're saying you can talk to the media, as long as we approve of the content.

That's gotta be a problem.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

When you put a non-disparagement agreement in the contract, [View all] Susan Calvin May 2022 OP

It's one thing for a private company to do this, cloudbase May 2022 #1

Sounds like a prior restraint to me. unblock May 2022 #2