> If I say I should eat bread but not shit, your argument is that my opponents can now say that I should eat shit but not bread. You're ignoring that only one o

> If I say I should eat bread but not shit, your argument is that my opponents can now say that I should eat shit but not bread. You're ignoring that only one of these is wrong. I’m not sure why you keep going with the weird shit-based analogy. My argument is simply that if you can control the speech of others, then they can control yours. Whether some speech is “right” or “wrong” is always going to be up for debate. The result will simply be that anyone in power will ban speech they don’t like.