‘Frack Gag’ Bans Children From Talking About Fracking, Forever

[Galraedia]

Source: ThinkProgress

When drilling company Range Resources offered the Hallowich family a $750,000 settlement to relocate from their fracking-polluted home in Washington County, Pennsylvania, it came with a common restriction. Chris and Stephanie Hallowich would be forbidden from ever speaking about fracking or the Marcellus Shale. But one element of the gag order was all new. The Hallowichs’ two young children, ages 7 and 10, would be subject to the same restrictions, banned from speaking about their family’s experience for the rest of their lives.

The Hallowich family’s gag order is only the most extreme example of a tactic that critics say effectively silences anyone hurt by fracking. It’s a choice between receiving compensation for damage done to one’s health and property, or publicizing the abuses that caused the harm. Virtually no one can forgo compensation, so their stories go untold.

Bruce Baizel, Energy Program Director at Earthworks, an environmental group focusing on mineral and energy development, said in a phone interview that the companies’ motives are clear. “The refrain in the industry is, this is a safe process. There’s no record of contamination. That whole claim would be undermined if these things were public.” There have been attempts to measure the number of settlements with non-disclosure agreements, Baizel said, but to no avail. “They don’t have to be registered, they don’t have to be filed. It’s kind of a black hole.”

The Hallowich case shows how drilling companies can use victims’ silence to rewrite their story. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that before their settlement, the Hallowichs complained that drilling caused “burning eyes, sore throats, headaches and earaches, and contaminated their water supply.” But after the family was gagged, gas exploration company Range Resources’ spokesman Matt Pitzarella insisted “they never produced evidence of any health impacts,” and that the family wanted to move because “they had an unusual amount of activity around them.” Public records will show, once again, that fracking did not cause health problems.

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/02/2401591/frack-gag-for-kids/

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. The ferederal government needs to stop this

[durablend]

11. They probably sanctioned it in the first place

Can't hurt the job-creating businesses now can we?

[L0oniX]

16. "clean energy" ...guess who? n/t

[Mr. Evil]

42. They did sanction it.

Remember Dick(head) Cheney's secret energy meetings? And how he made fracking activities immune to the clean water act. They knew it would poison the water, contaminate the land and pollute the air. Its ok though, they won't get sick because they don't live there.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

44. That needs to be changed now

[ConcernedCanuk]

15. Never happen - USA is desperate for endless oil supplies.

.
.
.

If the USA's war-machine grinds to a halt for lack of oil

much of the World is gonna pounce down it's throat.

When that bully loses his big stick,

the "wimps" will rise . . .

CC

[donquijoterocket]

23. Except

The u.s.military is trying to go to what they consider "greener" fuels despite congress standing in their way and hollering whoa.
Beyond that I agree with your assessment.We seem to be due a comeuppance and I doubt it will be pretty .I just hope they see it coming and get our men and women out of the way.

[PatSeg]

2. Doesn't sound like that could be legal

to impose a gag order on children that young. You can't make life-long decisions for people underage. Of course, I guess they don't care. By the time the kids become adults, Range Resources will probably have destroyed Washington County and moved on.

[W T F]

3. I don't see how your parent's can sign away your rights, but

I don't even think if the company can hold their parents libel for something their kids talk about. That's totally out of their control. That's like me holding Exxon Mobil libel, for something Shell oil did.

[Posteritatis]

4. Pretty much any judge on the planet would declare that agreement null and void. (nt)

[dragonlady]

6. Maybe not

This is a matter of contract law. You can make any contract you want as long as it doesn't violate some other law. The parents might sue to have the contract invalidated as against public policy, but then they would have to give back the money and have no compensation for their anguish except the satisfaction of talking about it. For people who aren't already fabulously wealthy, that's a tough decision. The kids might argue that they were not parties to the contract because they were minors, but I suppose that would have to wait until they reach the age of majority.

[Posteritatis]

7. No maybes about it. The agreement is a farce and utterly unenforceable. (nt)

[CreekDog]

22. children can't enter into contracts

sorry.

[revmclaren]

39. Minors cannot enter into any legal binding contract

especially when it comes to their rights, and no parent could ever sign away their child's rights forever so the company is out of luck there. This will be an interesting case to follow. Wont end well for the corporation.

[primavera]

8. Don't be so sure

There are an awful lot of judges who got where they are thanks to Federalist Society perks and opportunities paid for by the oil and gas industry, plus campaign contributions from industry. The vast majority of rulings these days favor corporations, regardless of any legal merit.

[Posteritatis]

9. Contracts cannot include lifetime gag orders for minors, full stop. (nt)

[Lugal Zaggesi]

14. It's even worse when the wrong parents sign away your rights,

like the Canarsee tribe, living on Long Island, selling Manna-hatta, the Island of many hills (where the Lenape tribe lived), to Peter Minuit and Dutch colonists for trade goods worth 60 guilders in 1626. It's not even Canarsee land! No judge will let that sale stand, condemning the children of the Lenape to a contract their parents never even knew about...

Today, Manna-hatta is known as Manhattan.
And the small group of descendants of the very surprised Lenape people are known as "federally recognized tribes":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenape

[FarleyK]

35. Contract Law?

As I understand it, the parents and their children will always be allowed to speak. The problem is, the oil company will just grind them into the dirt head first after sending them through a legal chipper/shredder with the full approval and willing support of the courts enforcing the laws created by the very corporations they protect. The lawsuit would be instantaneous, and I can even see a gag order issued until it is settled in the corporation's favor. No kangaroo courts here in America. How does one fight the corruption of our courts? Our corporations? Our government? We don't, and I am not sure we can right now.

So people take the money and stay quiet.

This can only be changed by an amendment stripping corporations of nearly all their power, making paid lobbying a felony for all parties involved, including the corporations behind the lobbyists. Basically, we should call this what it is: bribery. Citizen, political and corporate lobbies with essentially per-diem plus small-stipend lobbying with speech as the only means of persuasion, must be allowed. No private, corporate or even self-funding for elected office should be allowed. Add more, I'm sure our founders would appreciate enlightenment thinking, especially with two hundred years more science and knowledge.

The corruption must be destroyed or it will destroy us, and them. The people who support this system are much like cancer cells in the way they ultimately kill themselves in the process of killing the host.

I would hope law under such a system would develop in a manner never allow a corporation the right to such contracts, or even simple contracts of adhesion which we all live with daily. Thousands of other good laws, encouraging fair business practice, should in time balance the scale and the money. (I've been fighting this fight since I was in my teens, and that was five decades ago. So I've earned the right to dream.)

[malthaussen]

5. One would hope this were not legal...

... but "legal" is, of course, whatever one can get away with.

-- Mal

[Baitball Blogger]

10. I don't see how this can withstand a first amendment challenge.

To me it's like those clauses that homeowners had to sign promising never to sell their properties to a black person.

[cstanleytech]

12. Is this enforceable once they become 18 though?

I mean they have rights themselves and no parent can sell their childs rights away once they are a legal adult can they?

[Posteritatis]

19. Not the tiniest shred of an iota of a parody of a chance.

It's probably not enforceable now, either.

[matthews]

13. Here's yesterday's input on this topic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023393467

[valerief]

17. Wonder how soon the kids will meet an unfortunate accident. nt

[rdking647]

18. i talked to a friend of mine who is a lawyer

he said its unenforceable on the kids,especially when they turn 18.

[Harmony Blue]

20. Yes this is true but the fracking bullies

bank on people not having this knowledge.

[AppleBottom]

21. Corporate America has way too much influence on government policies. NT.

[freshwest]

24. I've seen this happen numerous times to plaintiffs to get settlement. The alternative is to wait

out the plaintiff until they die, preferrably, or are too sick or poor to fight any longer, and yield to the terms.

A lot of wrongdoing is never brought before the public eye this way. Stuff that literally blights the lives of those suffering or trying to help, knowing such evil in the world as goes on. Some might be surprised to know what is being done daily. Really, people don't want to know.

The public only sees the tip of the iceberg, which will be less and less as true investigative reporters - the kind that have it in their heart and soul to stand up for the weak - are driven out of the business, to allow it to promote the victim du jour that the rich want us to focus on.

These sealed agreements are recorded at court houses and buy silence on crimes committed, one person or family at a time. It's why I'm unmoved by outrage at DU. I'm got enough rage inside me to blow up a planet.

[ConcernedCanuk]

28. Myself - I'd take the money and run - literally

.
.
.

Keep pictures, records, receipts whatever, live quietly . . .

When my children were of age, I'd let them decide whether or not to blow the lid off.

I'd either have all the money spent,

or well hidden away with friends/relatives and a good chunk of cash in the ground somewhere . . .

Then I'd scream bloody hell (but only if my kids as adults were OK with that)

FRAKKEN SUE ME YA BASS-TURDS!!

CC

[Trillo]

25. I'm definitely not a lawyer, but something very basic here doesn't make sense.

But one element of the gag order was all new. The Hallowichs’ two young children, ages 7 and 10, would be subject to the same restrictions, banned from speaking about their family’s experience for the rest of their lives.

If the parents are prohibited from talking about the restriction, then they literally would also be strictly prevented from speaking with their children about it. What I'm saying is that once ones lips are sealed about a topic, even private conversations about the subject between family members would also be prohibited.

What a way to destroy a family!

[gordianot]

26. Thoughts come next? Die gedanken sind frei

[24601]

27. There are ways to end-run the restriction. If a congressional committee or a

court issues a subpoena, the prohibition will be overridden.

Or, get elected to congress because the Constitution's speech & debate clause prohibits a member from being questioned (except by the congressional body itself) about anything said on the floor.

[24601]

30. And another thought, duress. For example an armed gang kidnapped your family and

threatened to kill you and them unless you spoke up. Duress is a commonly-accepted defense except for homicide. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. They may well be able to stop the children talking to the media until they're adults

because a journalist would need the parents' permission to interview a child - I don't know if that would be up to 16, or 18, or what. They might be unable to stop the kids talking to friends, but it will be media interviews they worry about the most. Internet posts would be interesting, though - can the parents be held to be 'responsible' for those, and thus have to enforce the ban under the agreement?

[Bradical79]

31. Would they keep the money?

Seeing as how there is absolutely no way a contract with a lifetime gag order for a child is legal, would they likely still get to keep the money if they challenged this in court?

[Lint Head]

32. The children don't have to talk about it. If people who know them and are around them can

keep it alive. This is an opportunity to start a another movement that would simply point out and advertise this ridiculous decision.
Purchase opinion ads in the paper and on the internet from donations. Start a Face Book page and a Twitter feed. That would negate the decision all together.

[rocktivity]

34. How can that possibly be legal, let alone constitutional?

And I thought that minors couldn't sign contracts, anyway.

I hope those kids talk long and loud.


rocktivity

[santamargarita]

36. Fuck them, write a book! This is illegal.

[Shampoobra]

37. Fracking Pennsylvania: Flirting with Disaster by Walter M. Brasch (link)

http://www.amazon.com/Fracking-Pennsylvania-Flirting-Walter-Brasch/dp/0942991168/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1375551833&sr=1-1

At least they got it on the record before the gag order was issued. The author devotes a lot of space to the Hallowich family’s story.

(This title is also available as a free Kindle loan for Amazon Prime subscribers.)

[santamargarita]

46. Thanks. I use Kindle and will spread the word.

I remember when this scrum was trying get in PA. I was hopping they would keep them out.
If there is a hell, it's not going to be hot enough for Dick Head Cheney and the rest the right-wing assholes.

[Dawson Leery]

38. Ban all fracking!

[Ilsa]

40. No more giving up free speech for justice. nt

[Ash_F]

41. Take the money. Have the kids author a book. /nt

[SnakeEyes]

43. You can argue against fracking

But this family doesn't appear to be a good reason as evidenced by the lawsuit documents that the media forced to be released last year.

[yellowcanine]

45. Seems that if the company is talking about the case the gag order carries no weight.

In civil cases generally both parties have to keep quiet regarding a settlement. If the company wants the family to keep quiet then they should not be talking about the case either, regardless of how the gag order might be worded. I suspect the family could get this gag order lifted by a judge.