> 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.