Washington state does this with some parts of tenant law. There are certain tenant rights about habitability (heating, etc.) that are protected by law, and cannot be nullified by a rental/lease contract, even with consideration. The law states that the tenant legally cannot waive those rights.

That would also preclude non-disclosure agreements. I'm curious if you also find those unreasonable?

What are 'basic freedoms'?

The corporation did not do this to her. It was a two party agreement. She bears just as much blame for the agreement as the corporation. She entered into it willingly. And that does and should have consequences.

Morally speaking I think the company is reprehensible. But nor do I think contact law should be changed because of it.

> She lives in the UK and I'm speaking from a US perspective.

But the contract is being enforced from the US.

> I understand she's free to speak but there may be consequences

nit: this isn't generally a valid analysis. Rather, it's a common refrain used by people undermining freedom of speech while pretending to support it. This trope is often even trotted out in full-powertalk mode where it's applied to consequences coming from the government itself.

The UK is far worse, with draconian libel laws where the burden of proof is on the defendant. Originally designed to stop uppity commoners from challenging the aristocrats, now used by oligarchs to silence journalists.

Did you mean to say "presumed to be too stupid, or too easily conned or coerced"?

You just lost your job, through no fault of your own, or maybe because you did the right thing and blew the whistle on illegal and/or unethical behavior. You don't know how long it will be before you find a new job or how you are going to pay the bills until then. Your employer offers you some money to tie you over, and maybe some resources to tide you over until you get a new job, but you have to agree to a hundred pages of legalese. And you only have a few hours to decide, not enough time to have a lawyer look at it, even if you could afford to pay a lawyer. You are highly stressed, so even if you take the time to read it, you probably don't take it all in, and feel pressured to agree. And your employer also makes vague threats that about what will happen if you don't sign it, like having a hard time finding a new job or maybe having legal action taken against you.

Does that seem like a free informed decision?

Looking at it another way, anti-disparagement agreements are basically bribes to keep quiet even if disclosure would benefit the general population.

I would argue yes. If you have the choice to sell to sell it, you can be forced to sell it.

One can still give up their basic rights if they so choose. The woman in question can cease from disparaging Meta for the rest of her life. A person can opt to enter in to being a slave to another for the rest of their life. I can choose to follow one religion or another or none at all. But one should never have those options taken from them.