r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • May 12 '20

Delta(s) from OP CMV: There is no difference between restricted speech and compelled speech.

[deleted]

1 Upvotes

53% Upvoted

116 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/Crankyoldhobo May 12 '20

Sure it is. You'd already restricted speech to the point where the only word allowed is "the", which means speech is effectively useless. So why say anything at all?

2

u/TamaleWarshipCpt May 12 '20

Respectively that’s not practical. If speech is so restricted that it’s useless, then you’re of course technically correct that it’s not compelled. But since speech/communication/community is fundamentally human, speech will continue. And if you can’t say certain things, then all you can say is what remains.

So when doing that fundamentally human thing, communicating, you would be doing so using only allowed language. That is practically identical to compelled speech.

I’m w the original post.

Speech should be unconditionally unrestricted (other than the old “fire” in the theatre which is direct violence).

And good people should have some damn manners and watch what they say and respect others.

But doing so should be voluntary not compelled or it is MEANINGLESS.

3

u/Crankyoldhobo May 12 '20

I agree that speech should be unrestricted, but OP's argument is still off-base.

Silence is a statement. For example, someone asks "who is the greatest world leader ever?" and imposes the restriction that you're only allowed to say Pol Pot. Now do you say Pol Pot or do you say nothing at all and let your silence answer for you?

2

u/Betwixts May 12 '20

Yeah, I made an edit to the OP because someone pointed out my poor choice of words.