Compelling people to work for you against their will is not even close to the definition of slavery. It's informally part of the definition, but that's like saying the definition of an apple is "red food". It's an oversimplification.
The closest thing this case would have been to is coercion - the threat of force in order to get the other party to enter into a contract. It's still very much illegal, but let's not act like Redditors and destroy the English language just to prove a point.
I understand your point but that is very much nitpicking, as slavery is merely coercion as it's not like they can literally force a person to work a field against their will as they may attempt to flee even at their own risk or simply kill themselves to ultimately refuse to act. Slavery itself is based on coercion under threat of forceful violence at last until there is some sort of nonsense brainchip to physically puppet the body anyway.
The difference between slavery and coerced labor, even putting aside the fact that slaves don't get paid and coerced labor does, is that slaves are owned. They're property, at least in part. It's a very important distinction, and without it, the status of "slave" does not exist.
That means nothing, they are cognisant humans, they cannot be owned unless they submit to coercive actions. Yes it is an extreme example but they cannot be property and told what to do without a very significant "or else" If someone walked up to you and told you they owned you and you must now do what they say would you simply just do as told? I highly doubt that, they would have to add a threat of force or just use force to convince you to comply and even then you have extreme options of refusal.
Compelling people to work for you against their will is not even close to the definition of slavery. It's informally part of the definition, but that's like saying the definition of an apple is "red food". It's an oversimplification.
The closest thing this case would have been to is coercion - the threat of force in order to get the other party to enter into a contract. It's still very much illegal, but let's not act like Redditors and destroy the English language just to prove a point.
I understand your point but that is very much nitpicking, as slavery is merely coercion as it's not like they can literally force a person to work a field against their will as they may attempt to flee even at their own risk or simply kill themselves to ultimately refuse to act. Slavery itself is based on coercion under threat of forceful violence at last until there is some sort of nonsense brainchip to physically puppet the body anyway.
The difference between slavery and coerced labor, even putting aside the fact that slaves don't get paid and coerced labor does, is that slaves are owned. They're property, at least in part. It's a very important distinction, and without it, the status of "slave" does not exist.
That means nothing, they are cognisant humans, they cannot be owned unless they submit to coercive actions. Yes it is an extreme example but they cannot be property and told what to do without a very significant "or else" If someone walked up to you and told you they owned you and you must now do what they say would you simply just do as told? I highly doubt that, they would have to add a threat of force or just use force to convince you to comply and even then you have extreme options of refusal.
You sound Fag.