| |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No I just mean in the sense that I give over the rights to my own words. I can't repeat them outside of the context that I've agreed to. They were both examples of the same kind of agreement. They'll keep those rights well after I'm dead, by the way. | | |
| ▲ | TheOtherHobbes 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're not giving over the rights, you're selling the right to profit from them under contract. 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. |
| |
| ▲ | mikkupikku 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Exclusive book deals tend to have defined timespans 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. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Just to be clear: you're asserting that "there are some inalienable rights" can be debunked by the existance of one that is not inalienable? That's not how this works. | | |
| ▲ | SauntSolaire 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You asserted that free speech was an inalienable right, they provided an example showing it's not. They also could have mentioned: NDA's, hate speech, threats, incitement, purjury, defamation, security-clearances or state secrets. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > You asserted that free speech was an inaliable right, they provided an example showing it's not. 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. | | |
| ▲ | SauntSolaire 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're proving my my point, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, not an inalienable right. Please look up the definition of inalienable. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Some assert it's inalienable. (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. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mikkupikku 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | We're talking about whether people should be permitted to sign away their right to speech. I think you've conceded that such is permissible at least for a limited duration. Shall we quibble the permissible durations, or are you done? | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure; we have to resolve conflicts between two sets of people with rights sometimes. The inalienable right to free speech doesn't extend to defamation and fraud; the inalienable right to freedom of movement doesn't apply to jailed murderers. Unconscionability is a bit like obscenity; hard to perfectly define, but sometimes quite clear. | | |
| ▲ | SauntSolaire 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The inalienable right to free speech doesn't extend to defamation and fraud You have a strange definition of "inalienable". | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not really; it's a conflict between two groups and sets of rights. 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. | | |
| ▲ | SauntSolaire 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Those are not inalienable rights either, they're legal rights. Here, courtesy of Cornell law: "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. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | An inalienable right can also be a legally protected one. "Inalienable" is an assertion; a should. The right not to be genocided is inalienable. It gets violated still. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
