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.