General Discussion

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)

19. Upon reflection

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 03:36 PM

Aug 2013

if the child has a medical condition caused by fracking and the company is paying into a trust fund against future medical expenses, they could refuse to continue payments unless the the child signed an NDA on turning 18.

Of course, the child (now legally an adult) could then file suit in his own right, negating the silence the company was trying to buy.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

45 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

�Frack Gag� Bans Children From Talking About Fracking, Forever [View all] LanternWaste Aug 2013 OP

These companies are EVIL! Vinnie From Indy Aug 2013 #1

DUzy! Th1onein Aug 2013 #5

Good luck with enforcing that. I don't see how this is legal cali Aug 2013 #2

Not an attorey Kelvin Mace Aug 2013 #4

If I had to guess... Orrex Aug 2013 #10

Unless the settlement includes ongoing payments or a trust, that won't work localroger Aug 2013 #13

Except that such a legal agreement could not be extended to minor children Kelvin Mace Aug 2013 #16

I would likewise love to see it go to court Orrex Aug 2013 #26

Agreed, Kelvin Mace Aug 2013 #34

That's the way I was taught but I haven't seen the inside of a classroom since matthews Aug 2013 #32

Upon reflection Kelvin Mace Aug 2013 #19

My thought is that by the time the children are 18, the PR games played by the industry... LanternWaste Aug 2013 #20

Oh, they will keep it up Kelvin Mace Aug 2013 #33

Those kids can NOT be held to a contract that their parents signed once they hit 18. kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #9

However, the SCOTUS has such a pro-business agenda, MsPithy Aug 2013 #21

I don't think this has much to do with legality, it is a civil matter and, even if completely Egalitarian Thug Aug 2013 #30

I don't think so IDemo Aug 2013 #3

WTF? libodem Aug 2013 #6

If they were my children mick063 Aug 2013 #7

Unless I am reading this wrong Kelvin Mace Aug 2013 #17

Take the money Cronus Protagonist Aug 2013 #8

Take the money. Offshore it and don't let anyone know where (say 3 places). And write about it. grahamhgreen Aug 2013 #18

Freedom from Speech costs a tad under a cool mill. Octafish Aug 2013 #11

+1 liberal_at_heart Aug 2013 #43

The children are to young to agree to that Marrah_G Aug 2013 #12

Really means you wonder just what it is that they're hiding. chemenger Aug 2013 #14

Bingo! Champion Jack Aug 2013 #28

I don't know how that could be legally binding after they become 18. blackspade Aug 2013 #15

How is it "a common restriction" to be forbidden to discuss a SUBJECT, not just the specific legal WinkyDink Aug 2013 #22

How can this be legal? A child under 18 cannot legally consent to a contract. 1monster Aug 2013 #23

Frack should be made a cuss word felix_numinous Aug 2013 #24

I want to know how the FUCK it's legal in Penn. for a doctor to NOT be allowed to tell a patient Volaris Aug 2013 #25

Like the AZ law prohibiting doctors from telling women they have a tubal pregnancy? Thank ALEC. freshwest Aug 2013 #31

I don't call that socialism... Volaris Aug 2013 #38

Gag orders and socialim? Are you thinking of another post? freshwest Aug 2013 #39

Well don't say Fracking, say FUCKING. Betsy Ross Aug 2013 #27

so much secrecy these days n/t Enrique Aug 2013 #29

How can they even enforce that??? arcane1 Aug 2013 #35

The company'd be up on murder charges when the first judge to see that died laughing. (nt) Posteritatis Aug 2013 #36

Texas Sharon has an update reporting that Range is backing down Agony Aug 2013 #37

The first rule of Frack Club Blue Owl Aug 2013 #40

Duzy!!! rocktivity Aug 2013 #41

They are thugs trying to intimidate those who don't know any better. liberal_at_heart Aug 2013 #42

Wow, terrible. (no text) Quantess Aug 2013 #44

Range Resources? They have a history of using what they call "psy ops" derby378 Aug 2013 #45