disclaimer: She lives in the UK and I'm speaking from a US perspective.
Morally speaking I think the company is reprehensible. But nor do I think contact law should be changed because of it.
It is far more likely that an individual would do best to agree to a corporation's terms even if they favor the corporation than the other way around.
Pretending there is one lands you in an imaginary trap. Build a society where we recognize that and you build a society where the imaginary trap disappears.
But the contract is being enforced from the US.
nit: this isn't generally a valid analysis. Rather, it's a common refrain used by people undermining freedom of speech while pretending to support it. This trope is often even trotted out in full-powertalk mode where it's applied to consequences coming from the government itself.
Does that seem like a free informed decision?
Looking at it another way, anti-disparagement agreements are basically bribes to keep quiet even if disclosure would benefit the general population.
One can still give up their basic rights if they so choose. The woman in question can cease from disparaging Meta for the rest of her life. A person can opt to enter in to being a slave to another for the rest of their life. I can choose to follow one religion or another or none at all. But one should never have those options taken from them.
I would love to see NDAs for trade secrets limited in a way that incentivizes companies to rely on patent protection instead, where the system is set up to ensure that knowledge eventually becomes public record and freely usable by anyone. It would be very interesting to see how eg. the tech industry would change if trade secret protection were limited to a meaningfully shorter duration than patents.
What you shouldn't do is pretend not to understand.
We sell ourselves into a form of slavery every day. Some would argue that is a big driver of our current society and way of life.
But I understand that my point of view doesn't match legal code. Just feels fucked.
If it were up to me, I would require non-disparagement agreements to be standalone contracts, and cap the damages a company can claim to the amount they paid you to sign it. Once that number is met, the contract is void. That way the company only gets as much leverage as they're willing to pay for.
Think of a person digging their own grave under threat of immediate murder (tons of well documented examples). This is the maximum self alienation: do work to make life easier for your oppressors.
In my 41 years it seems like the majority of people are content digging their own graves
Good. We have "enumerate[d] [at least one] inaliable basic [freedom] that I should not be able to deal in".
Well I wouldn't call it a strong argument...
Nonetheless the goalposts were never shifted. The question was always 'should'. So I'm very confused by your confusion.
Should is an opinion. You're welcome to feel "slavery should be legal". I'm welcome to (and should) think you're insane for holding that opinion.
Well that would seem to make the rights in question not particularly inalienable. In fact if we're talking about the US slavery _is_ legal in certain contexts. So it's definitely not inalienable. Only in the context of voluntary agreements between private citizens.
You should read up on what "inalienable rights" are about. Even the first couple of paragraphs on Wikipedia will suffice.
They get violated all the time and need constant protecting.
This has nothing to do with the founding fathers. The Ancient Greeks talked about natural law. The UN passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 193 countries have ratified at least parts of it.
Again, I beg you to at least read a paragraph or two off Wikipedia.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
> Preamble
> Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world...
They're synonyms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_right goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right.... This happens a lot in English.
"Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable..."
> is that they're simply assertions
So's "we don't have natural rights".
That's the null hypothesis. There are no teapots orbiting the sun, either.
I think I will take feedback from someone who’s heard of a thesaurus.
I'm not clear on the newspaper example; do you think reporters aren't allowed to write stuff outside their job? Plenty of reporters publish books.
You can argue that contract law is essentially a battle of relative political and economic power, and IP and employment contracts will always be unfair unless limits are set by statute and enforced enthusiastically.
And personally I would.
But generally you're signing away the rights to specific text, not the insights or commentary in that text, and if you freelance there's nothing to stop you making your points through some other channel, and/or some other text.
If you're a full-time employee then the usual agreement is that your words (code) are work product and owned by your employer, and you're in that situation because your political and economic power is relatively limited.
Good. We have "enumerate[d] [at least one] inaliable basic [freedom] that peopke should be able to deal in".
Of course, we can quibble over the permissible duration of such timespans, but I think the point has been made clear.
That's not how this works.
They also could have mentioned: NDA's, hate speech, threats, incitement, purjury, defamation, security-clearances or state secrets.
No.
"Inalienable right", like the "right to bear arms", has never meant you get to do anything with it. Free speech doesn't extend to defamation; free expression doesn't extend to murder; freedom of the press doesn't extend to sneaking into the CIA's archives, freedom of movement doesn't apply to jails.
I'm of the opinion that arbitration clauses and non-disparagement agreements of the scope involved in this particular case are unconsionable, because they unreasonably infringe upon such inalienable rights.
(I don't agree - re-read my wording carefully - but some certainly take that position. My point: those who do still tend to take the "but there are limits!" position on, say, home-brewed nukes.)
In each case, though - constitutional right, human right, inalienable right, natural right - the fundamental concept of "sometimes two people have rights that conflict, and society has to resolve this" applies.
Unconscionability is a bit like obscenity; hard to perfectly define, but sometimes quite clear.
You have a strange definition of "inalienable".
I have the inalienable right to not be defamed and defrauded.
Now we have to resolve the contradiction as a society. That it's sometimes messy doesn't mean we ditch the concept of rights.
"An inalienable right is a fundamental entitlement inherent to every person that cannot be sold, transferred, or taken away by the government. These rights, often called natural rights are considered essential, cannot be surrendered by the individual, and are not dependent on laws."
Just Google "is x an inalienable right" next time.
"Inalienable" is an assertion; a should.
The right not to be genocided is inalienable. It gets violated still.