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

[wtmusic]

[div style="float: left; padding-right: 12px;"]"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.'"

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

Today's NINTO headline (No, It's Not The Onion).

[enough]

1. So interesting how the worst outrages against freedom of speech are now coming from

private industry (and many of them in Pennsylvania).

[shraby]

2. My guess is that clause would be declared unconstitutional and would have to be struck from the

document.

[enough]

3. One would hope so, but in these times I'm not so sure. (nt)

[wtmusic]

4. Could be.

Sounds like the judge in the case is pretty clueless.

"According to the transcript, the Hallowiches’ attorney, Peter Villari, said that in 30 years of practicing law he never had seen a nondisclosure agreement that included minor children.

And, although he advised the Hallowiches to accept the settlement, he questioned whether the children’s First Amendment rights could be restricted by such an agreement.

Judge Pozonsky, who has since resigned, responded that he didn’t know, adding, “That’s a law school question, I guess.”"

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/08/01/new-details-on-gas-drilling-lawsuit-gag-order/

[reusrename]

5. Gobsmacked.

It sure sounds like The Onion.

[Demeter]

6. Good luck with that!

and don't think of an elephant, while you're at it....

Is it fascism yet?

[hatrack]

7. Sorry, but a legal contract is binding upon minors . . . how?

Who the FUCK does Range Resources think they are?

Unbelievable.

[Champion Jack]

8. I'm not surprised

The gas companies bully, threaten and forge documents to get control of peoples land and that's only the tip of the iceberg

[mbperrin]

9. There's all that transparency that those nice people on commercials espouse!

You know, the woman dressed in white, the man in the nice but expensive casual clothes assuring us that the oil companies only think of us night and day?

Good thing lying is not against the law for commercials.

These children's gags will be treated just like non-compete agreements - unconstitutional restriction of rights.

But these damned companies are sure wanting to scoop gravel over their shit, eh?

I won't shed a tear when they become a boutique industry.

[limpyhobbler]

10. gas companies = psychopaths .nt