5 ms·

Why was it allowed in the first place especially with free speech being so important and constitutionally protected in the US ?

• axau 9y ago
  Because, in general, you’re free to enter into contracts that limit your rights if you so desire.
  • Retric 9y ago
    Not quite, you can only limit some behaviors, you can't for example sell yourself into slavery.
    • axau 9y ago
      Obviously. This is why I said "in general".
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• cimmanom 9y ago
  In the US, speech cannot be punished by the government. The constitution says nothing about private entities or contracts that limit speech.
  • Retric 9y ago
    There are limits on what contracts can and can't cover in terms of free speech. Requiring silence is a common item, so zero reviews may been an option. However, requiring a specific type of review aka only positive ones is a tricky subject that was unlikely to be legal.
    • marcoperaza 9y ago
      You can contract for people to tell lies even. That's what celebrity endorsement contracts essentially are, for example. I don't think this has anything to do with free speech, but more about fair business practices.
      • emodendroket 9y ago
        > You can contract for people to tell lies even. That's what celebrity endorsement contracts essentially are, for example. I think there are problems with casting it this way. You can get in trouble for making false claims in ads.
        • deleted 9y ago
          [deleted]
        • marcoperaza 9y ago
          Hence the tiny text on the bottom of the screen about "paid actors" or similar. But again, that's about prohibiting unfair business practices, misleading advertising in this case. It has nothing to do with the legal capability of the actors to contract to tell lies, and nothing to do with free speech (except that it's a limit on the free speech of the actors and the company).
• marcoperaza 9y ago
  Everything is allowed unless it's prohibited. Legislators aren't seers, and courts only rule on real cases before them, not hypotheticals. So both the judicial and legislative avenues of lawmaking are mostly reactive. This is almost always a good thing, as the underlying tradeoffs of a policy are more likely to come into focus once you have examples of real people on all sides of a real controversy, with concrete gains and losses. What you'll find is that there's typically some very broad law on the books, e.g. banning vague categories of anti-competitive behavior. Then the lower courts will hear a bunch of cases of varying similarity, a few get appealed here and there, and you eventually end up with stronger guidance as to a more specific issue.