Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
If I am reading the above correctly, then I agree.
To force speech is censorship.
Good point, that to force someone to make a statement is also a form of censorship, as well as forcing someone to silence a statement.
Here's the problem; it's a sleight of hand that is re-defining terms.
In essence, it is saying, "Look, 'A' has negative connotations. So I am just going to say that both sides are arguing for 'A', even though one side is arguing for 'A' and one is arguing for 'not A'." It's advanced "both sides-ism."
The reason why you don't immediately see it is because of two rhetorical tricks.
First, eliding the status quo.
Second, by re-defining censorship to include "forced speech."
Let's examine both.
1. Re-defining the status quo.
Store is selling Acme Widgets. That is the status quo.
It is category error to say that forcing them to stop selling widgets is the same as forcing them to keep selling widgets.
The reason for this should be obvious; they are already selling the widgets, and would continue to do so. No 'force' is being applied.
This doesn't affect the rights of people to advocate for the store to stop selling widgets, either with their wallet (don't buy the widgets) or through advocacy (telling other people that the widgets are harmful), but saying that these two things are the same is incorrect.
2. Compelled speech isn't censorship.
Compelled speech is wrong. In America, for example, it can violate the First Amendment in some case (such as when the government compels someone to say something they don't believe). But, and this is important, it's not the same thing as censorship. Even assuming that this is compelled speech (but see 1), compelled speech is never censorship. Here is the first definition of censorship when you look it up:
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
You can continue, but the whole point of censorship is that is involves suppression or prohibition of speech.
If this wasn't clear, think of the following two situations:
A. A group is demanding that booksellers and publishers stop selling gay and trans-friendly books.
B. A group is demanding that all doctors be required to give a prepared anti-trans message if an inquiry is made about gender identity. The doctor can still provide accurate information after that, but MUST provide that prepared message.
Both (A) and (B) are bad! But calling B censorship is just incorrect. It's compelled speech.