| Nem said: Can companies even make that kind of contract? Did he reveal any sort of secrets or something? Something is wrong if companies have the power to veto freedom of speech. Has got to be inconstituonal. Leaking company secrets is one thing, but simply talking in public is a right of every citizen. |
In order: Yes, sorta, that's not what freedom of speech means, and that's actually not true.
Yes: these contracts are both common and enforceable.
Sorta: not only did he kind of mock part of the fanbase, and the more rabid portion at that (a no-no for anyone but Reggie, thank you very much), he also divulged information about the internal workings of the company re: localization, decision making, and profitability. Not earth-shaking stuff, but not stuff the company necessarily wants made public either.
That not what freedom of speech means: freedom of speech is a constitutional protection, meaning it applies to restrict the government (and until the 14th Amendment was passed, mostly just the federal government at that). Contractual restrictions are common in many private relationships. Employment contracts are one. Settlements are another. There are also things any follower of video games knows a bit about, like non-disclosure agreements, that are likewise enforceable.
That's not actually true: related to the above, "talking in public" is not only technically untrue (see: non-protected speech), it's also rarely applicable to private relationships. This is actually why we have whistleblower laws: we've crafted limited exceptions to protect whistleblowers from legal reprisals for violating the terms of their contracts. The keyword is "limited": these laws often don't apply even in situations where they clearly should, and this is not such a case.
It's also worth noting that, in many (most?) states, there wouldn't even need to be a breach of an employment contract, as many/most states are "right to work" states, where the employer can terminate any employee for any reason at any time, or even no reason at all, unless the firing is shown to be in violation of a very limited group of exemptions. I'm not familiar with Washington law, but statistically it probably is a right to work state, so even having the unwritten rule would be more than enough.
