Gagging Clauses and Compensation Payments

All too often, someone is offered compensation by a big company, but only if they sign a gagging clause. For ever after they cannot alledge that chemical X produced by company Y caused birth defect Z, so similar. They cannot say company M has unsafe working practices. Even to a Parliamentary investigation. Certainly not to a TV journalist or scientific researcher.

If they are offered compensation but refuse to sign the gagging clause, courts will refuse to grant their legal costs, on the grounds that they could have settled.

Change the law. Limit compensation terms to finance and expicitly ban any restrictions on speech.

Why is this idea important?

All too often, someone is offered compensation by a big company, but only if they sign a gagging clause. For ever after they cannot alledge that chemical X produced by company Y caused birth defect Z, so similar. They cannot say company M has unsafe working practices. Even to a Parliamentary investigation. Certainly not to a TV journalist or scientific researcher.

If they are offered compensation but refuse to sign the gagging clause, courts will refuse to grant their legal costs, on the grounds that they could have settled.

Change the law. Limit compensation terms to finance and expicitly ban any restrictions on speech.

Limit legal costs of both sides of a case to the same money

Each side of a court case should only be allowed to spend the same money on their lawyers. If one side particularly wished to increase their legal defence/procesution then then they should foot the bill for the opposing party so that the costs are identical

Why is this idea important?

Each side of a court case should only be allowed to spend the same money on their lawyers. If one side particularly wished to increase their legal defence/procesution then then they should foot the bill for the opposing party so that the costs are identical