When you put a non-disparagement agreement in the contract,

[Susan Calvin]

It's reasonable to assume things are going on that need disparaging.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/teachers-in-southlake-asked-to-sign-non-disparagement-agreements/2954264/

"Seven months after teachers at the Carroll Independent School District in Southlake went public with their concerns about an administrator’s advice to balance books on the Holocaust with titles that show “opposing” perspectives, district employees this week discovered that a new clause had been added to their annual employment contracts, listed under the heading: “Non-Disparagement.”

“You agree to not disparage, criticize, or defame the District, and its employees or officials, to the media,” it read."

[cloudbase]

1. It's one thing for a private company to do this,

and entirely another for a governmental entity. I'm no attorney, but this might be actionable.
Or, just don't sign. If a significant number stick together, the district will have a pretty big problem.

[unblock]

2. Sounds like a prior restraint to me.

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.