That’s the most insane part. The Daily Wire claims to be an anti-(excessive) censorship, conservative, non-mainstream organization, and then it makes a contract where its employees are greatly punished for running afoul of the most mainstream of leftist standards. There’s “unfair opening offer” and then there’s “structured in such a way as to fundamentally undercut the entire alleged premise of the company.”

All questions of “fairness,” “negotiation,” and “friendship” aside, that contract deserved to be leaked simply because it exposes a massive open question about The Daily Wire’s commitment to its claimed values. Hypothetically, if I join “the organization to oppose cannibalism” and someone leaks that they stop their employees from saying cannibalism is bad, I don’t give a shit about whether the leaker was betraying trust or not and I don’t care if it turns out you can get permission to say cannibalism is bad if you ask nicely—I want to know why the organization to oppose cannibalism ever took that position on any level.

I will never understand why it was Crowder betraying his friends to publish an insultingly bad contract, but not those friends betraying Crowder when they offered that contract. The usual response is “it’s an opening offer! You’re supposed to negotiate!” but are you telling me that if you drew up a contract to employ one of your friends, you would intentionally draw up an awful, one-sided deal for that friend under the assumption they’ll go through and throw out every bad clause? Then what, you slap them on the back and go “good job buddy, you saw through my prank, let’s go a drink!” If they were foolish enough to accept, would you stop them from doing so? I know you’re a lawyer, but that still seems harsh.