I've come across a few of these at places I have recently been accepted at, and they are never fun to read. If you're new to contract work then this is essentially the one clause that can totally screw you if things go horribly wrong. From my understanding of the bullet point if a place is sued over one of your articles, for any reason, then the company will not protect you in any way. In fact, many places craft the clause in such a fashion that not only will they not protect you, but you will have to protect them, including covering any and all lawyer fees  (There are levels to indemnity, secured and unsecured, but in the end, they both suck for freelance writers).

Anyways, the point of this post is that I want to find out how many of you risk life and limb by signing these. So far I have been lucky and was able to modify contracts that weren't freelance writer friendly  Had to abandon the last two positions I was offered. Have you had the same luck? Has anyone abandoned a gig over contract disputes that didn't (outside of money)?

I've never seen this. It's a common clause to simply state that you won't write anything that could get them into trouble, but this is new to me. Care to mention who the contract's with, or will they come round and beat you with sticks?

I am afraid of the sticks, but most of the contracts I have seen have a clause, or mention the word in a few places. The ones that dropped the clause upon request are the places I work (or have worked) for.

Maybe it's different in the 'States. That said, I'm doing regular freelance stuff for a major US online publication and haven't had to sign anything other than a W8 tax form.

You did remind me that the DMCA actually protects businesses from getting sued off the bat.  All they have to do is take any offending article down right away and they are apparently freed of possible litigation.  That doesn't apply to us small fish, making it even more important to know what the indemnity entails.

The way it was explained to me went something like this:
Back in the day, a newspaper or other publisher would protect its reporters, be they freelance or not, from litigation.  While they may get in trouble internally, or no longer be hired (even though that wasn't supposed to happen), the writer wouldn't have to pay the fees for lawyers for any party (themself or the publisher).  In essence the editors were the people who were supposed to judge if the article was good to run, or needed to be toned down or what have you.

The lawyer who looked at my pair of recent contracts stated that the companies had completely reversed the old guard.  They will publish the content (or allow you to publish it on a site they own) but claim absolutely no responsibility for it, even if they purchased the copyright from you.  Assuming they did buy the piece, they now own all money making properties, while the writer would be stuck with all liabilities stemming from the piece