Ambiguity of「発言できない事もある」in this context


I have difficulty figuring out the correct meaning of「発言できない事もある」below.

> 和おばあちゃんの前で主体的に **発言できない事もある** し
>
> 今後も彼女のフリをし続けるなら、２人だけの合図が必要でしょ?
>
> 私がキュッと目をつぶったら、ＮＧ
>
> その誘いは断固断って

The above dialogue is done by the rental girlfriend to her client. They were
discussing what they should do if they want to communicate in front of the
client's grandma, especially when the client's grandma brought up something
uncomfortable to the rental girlfriend.

I have two ways to understand「発言できない事もある」. It can either mean

> There will be times when we can't communicate.

or

> There are things we can't communicate.

It seems to me that both meanings fit the context well.

My research brought me to [this
question](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/15995/when-
is-%E4%BA%8B-used-instead-of-%E3%81%93%E3%81%A8-for-past-experiences/15996).
Based on my understanding so far, こと is more abstract than 事, so 事 should be
used when a speaker is talking about actual situations and circumstances.
Therefore, the former meaning of「発言できない事もある」is correct. Am I right here?

What is the correct meaning? If possible, I'm curious to know how native
speakers understand「発言できない事もある」when they first read it.




When I listen, I mostly rely on the context. It could go either way.
Sometimes, the word is emphasized, with a clear pitch difference between its
two syllables as when it’s pronounced individually. When I detect it, I would
be more inclined towards “things” than otherwise because you don’t usually
emphasis a dummy noun.

When I'm reading, I would definitely understand it as “things” if it’s written
as 事. It’s so clear to me that concrete things (事) you talk about (e.g.
hobbies, work, family, etc.) are more concrete than instances (こと) of talking,
or having talked, about them. I would even consider any (modern) writer who
writes 事 in the first sense a bad writer.

As for this particular case, though, I noticed the verb used is 発言する, which is
normally used intransitively and therefore doesn’t take a direct object. Then,
we might be looking at an example of bad writing here. If she meant “things”,
she would have said 言えない事.

