pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Lifetime Ban on Children To Talk About Fracking
#1
I'm wondering how you can extend a gag order to children who don't have the right to submit to being enjoined in their own regard?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...t-fracking


Two young children in Pennsylvania were banned from talking about fracking for the rest of their lives under a gag order imposed under a settlement reached by their parents with a leading oil and gas company.

The sweeping gag order was imposed under a $750,000 settlement between the Hallowich family and Range Resources Corp, a leading oil and gas driller. It provoked outrage on Monday among environmental campaigners and free speech advocates.

The settlement, reached in 2011 but unsealed only last week, barred the Hallowichs' son and daughter, who were then aged 10 and seven, from ever discussing fracking or the Marcellus Shale, a leading producer in America's shale gas boom.
Reply
#2
Doubt it has a chance of standing up in any court.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
Everytime we look the other way when someone else loses rights we disagree with, we make it easier to lose the rights we support.

Reply
#3
I guess if they don't want to silence their children, then they shouldn't take the settlement. They're under no requirement to actually sign a document that they don't agree with.

I can kind of see why the gas company would want the order on the entire family though, because too many people like to use their children as pawns. The family could get the kids to talk to producers of films to tell "their story". This would prevent the parents from using their kids that way.
Reply
#4
streaker69;114924 Wrote:I guess if they don't want to silence their children, then they shouldn't take the settlement. They're under no requirement to actually sign a document that they don't agree with.

I can kind of see why the gas company would want the order on the entire family though, because too many people like to use their children as pawns. The family could get the kids to talk to producers of films to tell "their story". This would prevent the parents from using their kids that way.

I'm sure that's what the tactic is being used for but I don't think this holds water when the kids hit 18 and they're no longer under the guardianship of their parents legally.
Reply
#5
ArcticSplash;114925 Wrote:
streaker69;114924 Wrote:I guess if they don't want to silence their children, then they shouldn't take the settlement. They're under no requirement to actually sign a document that they don't agree with.

I can kind of see why the gas company would want the order on the entire family though, because too many people like to use their children as pawns. The family could get the kids to talk to producers of films to tell "their story". This would prevent the parents from using their kids that way.

I'm sure that's what the tactic is being used for but I don't think this holds water when the kids hit 18 and they're no longer under the guardianship of their parents legally.

Maybe the company is banking on that when they hit 18, no one will care what they think?
Reply
#6
There's a great many things that I would shut up about for a 750k payout.

Though in this case, I wonder if they'll ever get to say "Fracking Cylons!" without getting in trouble.
Vampire pig man since September 2012
Reply
#7
Sure. It's spelled "frakking"on the subtitles. Tongue

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Armor Snail, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#8
Yay! BS story is BS!

http://energyindepth.org/marcellus/settl...racturing/
[Image: incubi+INK.jpg]. ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN no diff
Reply
#9
Spacemanvic;115005 Wrote:Yay! BS story is BS!

http://energyindepth.org/marcellus/settl...racturing/

Nice find.

Also this:

Quote:The family previously acknowledged it was receiving royalty payments from hydraulic fracturing on the property. Those rights were not relinquished in the settlement, transfer tax records show.

A spokesman for Range Resources, one of the defendants, said the company settled to end the legal ordeal despite no substantiation of the health claims.

“We've long maintained there was never any environmental or safety impact on the family,” Matt Pitzarella said. “The public can now very clearly see this is an industry that is being faithfully and responsibly developed without adverse impacts on health, safety or the environment.”

The Hallowiches received $594,820 and their lawyers $150,000, plus $5,179 for costs. The other companies in the case were Williams Gas/Laurel Mountain Mid-Stream and Mark West Energy Partners.

The sides settled the case in July 2011, but the companies asked that the records be sealed and a judge agreed. Media organizations challenged the decision.

So the fracking "destroyed" their land, so they moved away and then launched this suit because why exactly? They were getting enough money to pay whatever medical expenses they supposedly incurred.

http://triblive.com/news/washington/3705...z2OHWoVNcN




However, this gag order on their kids is real. How dat gonna work when they hit 18?
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Judge to serve 28 years after making $2 million for sending black children to jail Jon Doe 17 2,140 09-07-2013, 04:02 PM
Last Post: Philadelphia Patriot
  Ban on AR's in PA. Pa.Bill 23 3,296 06-27-2013, 04:29 PM
Last Post: LostCyborg
  Action Alert: Philadelphia City Park Ban jahwarrior72 7 1,535 06-11-2013, 07:50 AM
Last Post: spblademaker
  Beaver Falls Considering Dog Ban In Business District Jon Doe 4 1,075 09-17-2012, 11:11 PM
Last Post: Spacemanvic



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.