Children forbidden to talk about fracking

[NorrinRadd 0]

These kids were included in a gag order as part of a settlement:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/05/children-ban-talking-about-fracking

Not sure how I feel about this. I do not think that the kids can be held to a decision they did not voluntarily participate in that limits their freedom of expression. I kinda feel like both their parents failed in this, as well as the Range Resource, for insisting that they be part of it. Feels rather dodgy, but that's just me.
Edit:
Sets a really strange precedent, and I think this may actually fall under constitutional law, if they chose to fight it, when they gain their age of majority. Damn corporations will try to get away with just about anything they can...

Why drive myself crazy trying to be normal, when I am already at crazy?

[quade 4]

Hmmm, I could swear we discussed this. Maybe I discussed it somewhere else and just thought it was here.

Quote

I do not think that the kids can be held to a decision they did not voluntarily participate in that limits their freedom of expression.

Precisely. The kids are too young to sign away their rights and the parents can't do it for them. Sort of like a tandem waiver.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,132]

I liked this line from one of the company's lawyers:

=========
He went on to tell the paper that there was no evidence that the Hallowich family was affected by exposure to gas development.
=========

I mean, just ask them, they'll tell you. Then he can sue them for talking.

[Stumpy 284]

billvon

I liked this line from one of the company's lawyers:

=========
He went on to tell the paper that there was no evidence that the Hallowich family was affected by exposure to gas development.
=========

I mean, just ask them, they'll tell you. Then he can sue them for talking.

There was no effect, yet they gave them 3/4 of a million dollars and got a gag order? The fracking isn't affecting me either - can I get the same?

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Kennedy 0]

billvon

I liked this line from one of the company's lawyers:

=========
He went on to tell the paper that there was no evidence that the Hallowich family was affected by exposure to gas development.
=========

I mean, just ask them, they'll tell you. Then he can sue them for talking.

Actually, the plaintiffs admitted that they suffered no ill effects. It's in the settlement, or the defendant companies wouldn't have signed off on it.
So do you think the plaintiffs told the truth to the court and never suffered ill effects, or that they lied to get the money?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[NorrinRadd 0]

Kennedy

***I liked this line from one of the company's lawyers:

=========
He went on to tell the paper that there was no evidence that the Hallowich family was affected by exposure to gas development.
=========

I mean, just ask them, they'll tell you. Then he can sue them for talking.

Actually, the plaintiffs admitted that they suffered no ill effects. It's in the settlement, or the defendant companies wouldn't have signed off on it.
So do you think the plaintiffs told the truth to the court and never suffered ill effects, or that they lied to get the money?
Guess we'll never know for sure. Not, at least, until the kids grow up and possibly try to talk about. Or wrangle more money out of the settlement.

Why drive myself crazy trying to be normal, when I am already at crazy?

[Stumpy 284]

Kennedy

Actually, the plaintiffs admitted that they suffered no ill effects.

Where? got a link?

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[dmcoco84 5]

quade

Hmmm, I could swear we discussed this. Maybe I discussed it somewhere else and just thought it was here.

If you are talking about in my thread... you didn't say jack shit about this.

Additionally...

However, once that gag order came to light, two years after the August 2011 proceedings, the company told reporters it did not agree with Swetz's comments. "We don't believe the settlement applies to children," a Range Resources spokesman told the Gazette.

Just as pointless of an article as in my thread.

[Stumpy 284]

dmcoco84

***Hmmm, I could swear we discussed this. Maybe I discussed it somewhere else and just thought it was here.

If you are talking about in my thread... you didn't say jack shit about this.

Additionally...

However, once that gag order came to light, two years after the August 2011 proceedings, the company told reporters it did not agree with Swetz's comments. "We don't believe the settlement applies to children," a Range Resources spokesman told the Gazette.

Just as pointless of an article as in my thread.

That would be a good result. Unfortunately the lawyer previously said "I guess our position is it does apply to the whole family. We would certainly enforce it,".

Hopefully the kids can forget about it and move on making the question moot.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[dmcoco84 5]

Stumpy

******Hmmm, I could swear we discussed this. Maybe I discussed it somewhere else and just thought it was here.

If you are talking about in my thread... you didn't say jack shit about this.

Additionally...

However, once that gag order came to light, two years after the August 2011 proceedings, the company told reporters it did not agree with Swetz's comments. "We don't believe the settlement applies to children," a Range Resources spokesman told the Gazette.

Just as pointless of an article as in my thread.

That would be a good result. Unfortunately the lawyer previously said "I guess our position is it does apply to the whole family. We would certainly enforce it,".

Hopefully the kids can forget about it and move on making the question moot.

Which was their response, to that lawyer's statement...

Last I checked, the company, gets to decide if they enforced it or not... not the lawyer(s).

[Kennedy 0]

Stumpy

***
Actually, the plaintiffs admitted that they suffered no ill effects.

Where? got a link?

It's linked from the article in the OP.
http://ae3b703522cf9ac6c40a-32964bea949fe02d45161cf7095bfea9.r89.cf2.rackcdn.com/2013/211/626/pg-settlement-hearing-transcript.pdf
Those are the transcripts from just before the judge approved the settlement.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/washington/confidential-agreement-should-have-been-part-of-washington-county-marcellus-shale-case-record-697530/#ixzz2bQzxgJ5Q
This is the original Pennsylvania paper that the OP article is going off of.

Quote

"All of the reports done at the time indicated no exposure [from the gas development] and they never produced evidence of any health impacts," Mr. Pitzarella said. "We did say that clearly the Hallowichs were not in an ideal situation in terms of their lifestyle. They had an unusual amount of activity around them. We didn't want them in that situation."
He noted that as part of the settlement agreement, they willingly signed a document that stated the family's health was not affected by the gas operations.
Mr. Villari said that the settlement "would not have gone forward" if the Hallowichs refused to sign the document.
"The defendants required certain language. It was insisted upon," he said.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Stumpy 284]

Kennedy

******
Actually, the plaintiffs admitted that they suffered no ill effects.

Where? got a link?

It's linked from the article in the OP.
http://ae3b703522cf9ac6c40a-32964bea949fe02d45161cf7095bfea9.r89.cf2.rackcdn.com/2013/211/626/pg-settlement-hearing-transcript.pdf
Those are the transcripts from just before the judge approved the settlement.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/washington/confidential-agreement-should-have-been-part-of-washington-county-marcellus-shale-case-record-697530/#ixzz2bQzxgJ5Q
This is the original Pennsylvania paper that the OP article is going off of.

Quote

"All of the reports done at the time indicated no exposure [from the gas development] and they never produced evidence of any health impacts," Mr. Pitzarella said. "We did say that clearly the Hallowichs were not in an ideal situation in terms of their lifestyle. They had an unusual amount of activity around them. We didn't want them in that situation."
He noted that as part of the settlement agreement, they willingly signed a document that stated the family's health was not affected by the gas operations.
Mr. Villari said that the settlement "would not have gone forward" if the Hallowichs refused to sign the document.
"The defendants required certain language. It was insisted upon," he said.

There is nowhere in the transcript where they say they suffered no effects - just the opposite in fact. And from the original article "They said air and water contaminants caused them to experience burning eyes, sore throats, headaches and earaches, and contaminated their water supply."

and ***
Mr. Pitzarella emphasized the company's denial that its drilling operations caused any harm to the health of the Hallowichs.
"All of the reports done at the time indicated no exposure [from the gas development] and they never produced evidence of any health impacts," Mr. Pitzarella said. "We did say that clearly the Hallowichs were not in an ideal situation in terms of their lifestyle. They had an unusual amount of activity around them. We didn't want them in that situation."
He noted that as part of the settlement agreement, they willingly signed a document that stated the family's health was not affected by the gas operations.
Mr. Villari said that the settlement "would not have gone forward" if the Hallowichs refused to sign the document.
"The defendants required certain language. It was insisted upon," he said."

OK so imagine the situation - we will pay you to move house and cover all your expenses to make your kids safe if you will sign this document. Hmmm. "Under duress" springs to mind.

I don't think for 1 second that the motive of the gas company was anything other than making a problem go away.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Kennedy 0]

Watch your double standard. We don't have the settlement itself yet. If you're going to take lawyers' words and discussion as justification that it affects the children, you really need to take their word that the admission or no injury is in the settlement as well.

Quote

OK so imagine the situation - we will pay you to move house and cover all your expenses to make your kids safe if you will sign this document. Hmmm. "Under duress" springs to mind.

Sign the settlement or not, nobody forced them into it. They had a lawyer and a judge there to ensure they understood their rights.

Quote

I don't think for 1 second that the motive of the gas company was anything other than making a problem go away.

I don't either. The difference between us seems to be that you assume anyone who settles and pays is actually wrong. Talk to a lawyer. It just isn't so.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*