USA Gymnastics later said they won’t seek any penalty from the former gymnast for discussing Larry Nassar's abuse.

lilyvonpseudonym:

rapeculturerealities:

Chrissy Teigen offered her support to former Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney in a big way on Tuesday morning: The model said she’d be “absolutely honored” to pay a $100,000 penalty that Maroney might face for violating a nondisclosure agreement with USA Gymnastics if she choses to speak at the sentencing for disgraced team doctor Larry Nassar.

Maroney, best known as one of the Fierce Five at the 2012 Summer Olympics, revealed in October 2017 that she had been sexually abused by Nassar from age 13 until she left gymnastics at age 20. She has said the abuse led her to thoughts of suicide.

In 2016, Maroney received a $1.25 million settlement from USA Gymnastics after the organization learned of Nassar’s actions. That settlement included an NDA with a $100,000 penalty if she ever spoke about the abuse she’d allegedly suffered at the doctor’s hands. The 22-year-old may have already triggered that provision with her revelations in October.

Teigen tweeted a screenshot of a Daily Mail article about the possible penalty, along with her impassioned show of financial support

Maroney is suing USA Gymnastics, the United States Olympic Committee and Michigan State University for allegedly forcing her “to agree to a nondisparagement clause and confidentiality provision.”

Later on Tuesday, USA Gymnastics told HuffPost that they have not “sought and will not seek any money” from Maroney for “her brave statements made in describing her victimization and abuse by Larry Nassar.” They also said they will not seek money for any victim impact statement she chooses to make at this week’s hearing or “at any subsequent hearings related to his sentencing.”

“This has been her right and USA Gymnastics encourages McKayla and anyone who has been abused to speak out,” the statement read. “USA Gymnastics remains focused on our highest priority ― the safety, health and well-being of our athletes and creating a culture that empowers and supports them.”

I’ve yet to see any explanation on why society should allow nondisclosure agreements regarding crimes committed against them.

In what way does it serve the public good to allow people to enforce contracts preventing people from discussing crimes? It comes up in precisely zero situations that don’t involve an imbalance of power. They’re intimidation tactics. Adhesion contracts. Why do we allow them?

Oh, right, because the rich own our legislature.