Dan Solove talks about this at Concurring Opinions. According to news reports, Tiger Woods is going to insist on a confidentiality clause in their upcoming divorce contract / settlement agreement with Elin Nordegren.
The interesting question to me is: Why?
Tiger Woods has pretty much already had his reputation destroyed. Everyone in the world already knows about his eighty-five cocktail waitresses, pornstars, and other mistresses. Those who are interested can ready dirty text messages he sent by doing a quick search of The Google. What can Elin add? Or rather, what can Elin add that damages Tiger's rep? The fact that he was a lousy husband? Lousy father? That his actions were hurtful? Um, yeah, we know.
The interesting question to law professors is apparently: Will this (potential, future) agreement be contractually enforceable?
I mean, that's extremely basic contract law. If they do have this agreement and she breaches it, he can sue and get some or all of his money back. But but but, the reasoning is wrong! There are first amendment implications (because she's agreeing to restrict her speech)! (But there aren't because the state isn't depriving her of her right to free speech.) And... I don't know. What I'm mostly taking out of this is that my excessive eye rolling probably means I have zero interest in becoming a law professor. Or that I'm not interested in theoretical contract and speech problems and I'm not smart enough to do the sort of stuff our friend Brian does.
In other, unrelated, news, the Flyers just won a hockey playoff series. The Onion is right -- I didn't know.
In more unrelated stuff, this seems fitting with Monday fast approaching.