Feel free to point out anywhere the constitution says so. The constitution and/or bill of rights have nothing to do with this situation, as no constitutional rights were broken whatsoever.
>or these statements were in violation of some otherwise unknown confidential settlement agreement
I really have no idea what you're talking about here. What confidential settlement agreement?
>who is to say the employee statements were disparaging? Amazon?
Yes.
>No whether a statement is disparaging or otherwise violates the terms of an agreement is an issue of fact for a fact finder (i.e. jury or more rarely a judge) to determine.
No it's not. This isn't a court of law. It has nothing to do with whether the "agreement" was violated or not, and there is no need for anyone to do any "fact finding". This is an employment arrangement which can unilaterally be ended at any time by either party, and Amazon has chosen to do so.
>or these statements were in violation of some otherwise unknown confidential settlement agreement
I really have no idea what you're talking about here. What confidential settlement agreement?
>who is to say the employee statements were disparaging? Amazon?
Yes.
>No whether a statement is disparaging or otherwise violates the terms of an agreement is an issue of fact for a fact finder (i.e. jury or more rarely a judge) to determine.
No it's not. This isn't a court of law. It has nothing to do with whether the "agreement" was violated or not, and there is no need for anyone to do any "fact finding". This is an employment arrangement which can unilaterally be ended at any time by either party, and Amazon has chosen to do so.