I understand freedom of speech and I understand she's free to speak but there may be consequences. I understand that there are huge complexities in the legal system. I understand you can enter into agreements (part of your speech) that effectively gives away your speech. But if you step back and look at this situation, it's just fucked up that a corporation can do this to you. If freedom of speech is supposed to be inalienable, these types of agreements should not be legal.

disclaimer: She lives in the UK and I'm speaking from a US perspective.

▲

zaphar 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The corporation did not do this to her. It was a two party agreement. She bears just as much blame for the agreement as the corporation. She entered into it willingly. And that does and should have consequences.

Morally speaking I think the company is reprehensible. But nor do I think contact law should be changed because of it.

▲

rkomorn 10 hours ago | parent [-]

I'd agree with you if there wasn't a significant power imbalance that virtually always skews way more in favor of the corporation.

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.

▲

zaphar 10 hours ago | parent [-]

The antidote to a power imbalance is to recognize that there is no power imbalance and go about your life that way.

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.

	▲	mindslight 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You're the one pretending here. The economy is unfortunately designed around most people relying on an income stream that remains at the whims of someone else.

▲

thayne 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> She lives in the UK and I'm speaking from a US perspective.

But the contract is being enforced from the US.

▲

fmajid 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The UK is far worse, with draconian libel laws where the burden of proof is on the defendant. Originally designed to stop uppity commoners from challenging the aristocrats, now used by oligarchs to silence journalists.

▲

mindslight 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I understand she's free to speak but there may be consequences

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.