Jerry..

If you are referring to the Federal Government, then the 14th. Amendment does not apply.

With respect to your example on a EULA restricting your 1st Amendment rights, I have to tell you that is not unconstitutional. First off, the first amendment protects you from the government, not private parties. Second, with respect to rights you legally have, people all the time waive those in contracts. The waiving of a right that you have is part of the bargained for consideration you provide to make the agreement binding.

If you feel that strongly about not giving up your rights, don't consent to the EULA, don't use/liscense the software.

You have a choice to not enter into a contract.

As far as Ford having the type of clause in a sales agreement that stated you cannot express your opinion, if I were the Lawyer on the case, I would have no problems getting that term whacked from the agreement. For one thing, most likely, the term is buried in boiler-plate terms, which are never bargained for. The consideration given is for the car, not for your promise to never say anything bad about the car. A term like that would be seen as unconcionable, at least, that is the argument I would make. I think a decent first year law student after taking contracts could do a fine job of that. Second, because cars are good, that contract is governed by the UCC. Specfically, section 2-207 deals with cases like this - getting unconcionable terms whacked from an agreement and dealing with competing, sometimes conflicting terms.

All that said, if you and I entered into a contract and we made mutual agreements to not saying disparaging words about each other in public, then that would be binding. For one thing, it is a central part of the agreement. Most importantly, it was bargained for, and that makes the difference





>><<
>>State side its gettng so that corps are making laws and destroying the Bill of Rights at the same time
>><<
>>
>>An interesting discussion. Tell me Jerry, do you believe the 14th. Amendment explicitly wraps the bill of rights into a consolidated package and makes them applicable to the states?
>
>"Section 1.
>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
>
>
>Is this what you are refering to, including Section 5 ???
>
>It says "No State shall make or enforce ....". That's seems totally inclusive to me. But, I am not refering to States, but to the Federal Government and current interpretation of contract law. When a software company begins including paragraphs in their EULA restricting constitutional rights of free speech about consumer products (not propriatary knowledge gained as an employee) that is unaceptable. If I purchase a product A and in my experience with it find it to be a buggy, worthless piece of trash, that doesn't perform as the ads claims it does, I have the right to tell others what I have experienced. Congress should not allow such breaches of the Bill of Rights.
>
>Can you imaging Ford Moters having a little clause in their contract that prohibits you from expressing your opinion about their Ranger SUV in any context without their approval in writing? Especially if a family member was killed by a tire blowout? How about it when the USS Yorktown, under complete control of a redundant NT server farm during war games simulations, cannot defend itself or steer out of harms way after all the servers crash, and has to be towed back to port. Now we are talking about national security.