I have consistently said "should be illegal", not "is currently illegal".

I'm entirely aware that these sorts of contracts are legal in US law. They should not be.

But your glib response above was just to quote "the law", like this was a sufficient justification. If merely quoting the law is enough, then great, we already justified perfectly the copyright and jailing weed smokers stuff. It's only now that you changed tack to make a different argument, which... I mean I might disagree with or not, but it's not what I took issue with above.