SEC Gag Orders Silence the Accused | Hacker News Reader

SEC Gag Orders Silence the Accused

reason.com

25 pointscaprock11 comments

Since the SEC is the government, doesn't this practice run afoul of the 1st Amendment?

Taking away rights may be an essential part of punishment, but the rights taken should be only in pursuit of that punishment (e.g. imprisonment takes away the right of free movement).

Then there is also the public's right to know about how government agencies act in their name. Imagine if prosecutors routinely demanded gag orders as part of plea deals, forbidding convicts from discussing their trial or prison conditions. The SEC practice is less egregious, but qualitatively equivalent.

This is a civil matter, so it's in some ways more analogous to a google employee keeping quiet out of fear they'll be sued for violating a non disclosure agreement with google.

Or a rape victim being unable to speak out about the fact they were raped due to the terms of the settlement with the rapist.

I guess I'm saying limits on speech due to fear of being sued are not unusual under our system.

Your examples are contracts between private parties, entered freely. This is a contract with the government, signed under threat of prosecution.

My examples involve the government (the judicial branch is a branch of government) limiting speech on behalf of Google or a rapist when Google or a rapist asks the government to do so by filing a law suit via the government's court system.

SEC doesn't have the power to unilaterally silence someone, and that isn't what's happening here. The story told here is about settlements. These settlements are agreed by both parties and supervised by a judge. The first amendment doesn't prevent you agreeing to silence in exchange for ending a legal proceeding.

FWIW the term "gag order" usually refers to a court order (ie from a judge) not discuss an in-progress proceeding. It's a bit of a misleading title.

> SEC doesn't have the power to unilaterally silence someone

No, but it does have all the power of the State to legally threaten and prosecute people. Do we want state agencies using their power to threaten people into silence? How does that help fulfill SEC's stated mission?

Again, how would you feel if criminal plea deals came with NDAs? Would that destruction of transparency improve the justice system? If not, why is it a good idea for the SEC to do so?

> criminal plea deals came with NDAs

The article says:

> A nonnegotiable term of that settlement, and all SEC settlement agreements, is that Bob must never publicly profess his innocence

I am comfortable with a criminal plea deal not allowing someone to say they are innocent. In fact my understanding is plea deals generally include admission of guilt (to a lesser crime).

> I am comfortable with a criminal plea deal not allowing someone to say they are innocent.

I am not. How are we then to learn about corrupt prosecutors?

> Bob maintains that his business was perfectly legal. He would have happily proved that in court if not for the severe penalties he was facing. He's so adamant about this that he wrote an entire book defending himself and attacking the SEC for its accusations.

Bob chose silence in order to avoid going to court. If he doesn't want to be bound by that agreement, he can renege on it. I have a beef with SEC settlements, but this ain't it.

Stupid move on the part of the SEC - crypto bros and MAGAs are sure to use that against them as justification against “the establishment”.

Does anyone know more about the case noted in the article? Are there public lists of SEC settlements?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com