Comments on: Weinstein’s investigations — and settlements

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 08 Nov 2017 22:49:19 +0000

Agreements with public entities are already available under California’s laws concerning access to public records so it’s covered as far as interests in public entity expenditures and management. Publicity is a deterrent to a victim seeking compensation as much as it is to a perpetrator continuing to perpetrate, and NDAs are requested by accusers as well as the accused. If a victim has the misfortune of being victimized by a person in the public eye, do we really want to make that publicity a condition for seeking compensation?

By: Gasman

Gasman — Wed, 08 Nov 2017 13:34:45 +0000

Yep. The settlement should be about compensating the victim/plaintif to the value of their loss, not to the cost of public disclosure to the defendant.
Weinstein would have been brought down decades ago had not encouraged plaintiffs to cash out at the higher non-disclosed value.

Then we wouldn’t have ilk like Meryl Streep pretending to be shocked that this ever happened in their Hollywood. They all knew, and if they didn’t get to the top on their own backs, then they got there knowingly crawling over the bodies of those who did get abused.

By: David C

David C — Wed, 08 Nov 2017 07:30:19 +0000

Heck, I’d get rid of confidentiality in ALL settlements. I’d even create a public registry which included the entire settlement agreement, including dollar amounts. Arbitration awards too, just so that wouldn’t be a loophole.

Yes, it’s going to reduce the value of the settlement if accusations can’t be kept a secret. But that extra value is a built-in blackmail/bribery, whether or not it’s intended that way. “Pay me or I go public”, or “here’s money to shut up about what I did to you” – either one is unacceptable to me.