That is not an argument.

Then it's a good thing this doesn't do that. Instead, all it would do is take away enforcement of non-disparagement clauses. That gives people more freedom. Because, contract law is just law that compels people to keep promises they make.

The reason we have contract law is commitment. This is sometimes necessary to keep things flowing smoothly, but it this principle can very quickly lead to extremely intrusive government. As a consequence, we have to keep it carefully trimmed.

Everyone is aware of that.

> I don't really want some arbitrary govt limit restricting what private parties can do with each other.

Great! Then you surely don't want the government to censor this author if she were to criticize Meta, a.k.a., "enforcing the non-disparagement agreement".

If I'm wrong, and you do think it should be enforced, then my alternative response is this: You are confused. It is the enforcement of the non-disaparagement agreement that is the government limitation and restriction of private parties.

I'm a staunch defender of civil liberties, so I think the government should stay out this affair by declaring the agreement to be unenforceable.

Not an argument. Yes, she can reject the offer. The guy up top is saying that the non-disparagement clause shouldn't be enforced, a claim that you are just dodging.

After all, why should we be okay with government censoring people on behalf of businesses?

She was not forced to sign the NDA. That is correct. Take note, however, that she would still be forcibly silenced by the government if you want this contract upheld. And that will "hold a gun to their head".

This is exactly the kind of response with the right amount of flippancy/belligerence that "they aren't/weren't forced to sign" deserves to be met with.