[Invictus0]

> "In 2019, Blue Origin leadership requested that all employees sign new contracts with a non-disparagement clause binding them and their heirs from ever saying something that would 'hurt the goodwill of the company,'" the essay authors write. "Contracts for some departing employees now mandated they pay the corporation’s legal fees if the corporation chose to sue them for breach of contract. The inner circle of leadership tracked who signed and discussed contingency plans for those who did not."

They signed non-disparagement contracts.

[jaytaylor]

> Defamation is essentially, “Don't make up bad things about us to hurt us,” while disparagement is, “Don't say bad things about us—even if they're true.” So, yes, even if your happy-hour venting session or LinkedIn post references something totally true and not malicious, it's still considered disparagement.

[no_butterscotch]

> all employees sign new contracts with a non-disparagement clause binding them and their heirs from ever saying something

uh what? their heirs?

How is that even enforceable?

[Sanguinaire]

I suppose a parent might be held responsible for their kids below a certain age - and getting pissy about what a 15 year old is saying on their Twitch stream is totally in keeping with my experience of Bezos' corporate PR.

That said, this should be laughed out of court regardless of the age of the "heirs". In Europe you could reasonably expect that to happen with minimal bother, but in the US I expect the employee would end up paying a six figure sum for the privilege of getting the case thrown out.

[belval]

Can you actually bind the heirs? How would that work?

[LaundroMat]

Are such things enforceable in court?

[codezero]

Doesn’t need to be, the company has more money than the individual, so the threat remains tangible to many.

[LaundroMat]

I understand that, but I still wonder if it is.