It means you can't use these terms in official business of running the government

Let's say someone whose job it was to type up laws did use one of the forbidden words. What would happen? Would they get fired? Would they get reprimanded? If there is any reprisal from "the State" for using one of these terms, that's the definition of a law. More specifically, a "Law" by definition, is a description of a limit from a legally appointed authority (like a Governor), that is enforced through coercion.

What would you call a decree from the Sovereign with veiled threats of reprisal?

Let's go a step further. Would such a law proposal, written with the outlawed words, get forwarded to the other lawmakers to be read as is supposed to happen, or would someone change it first? How would someone know to change it? Would they have word monitors to make sure no one whose job it is to type up the laws is using one of the banned words?

If there is any way of keeping the words from making it to where it is intended to go, then it is no different than any other action by a government to prevent the use of words or ideas.

The proper way to handle something like this is through choice. If the lawmakers, who make the laws, decide themselves to change the wording, that is their jurisdiction. Words aren't being banned, they are being decided upon by the right people. No harm, no foul, no Hitler analogies required.

Ms. Sanders could have easily made her case without making a decree or threatening reprisal against her decree. She had the floor, she could have made her argument. If it was a good one, the people (lawmakers in this case) might choose to follow her ideas. One person, having the power to control words or ideas, in any jurisdiction but her own voice, is the opposite of what we are fighting for.

At least it's the opposite of what I am fighting for.

It means you can't use these terms in official business of running the government

Let's say someone whose job it was to type up laws did use one of the forbidden words. What would happen? Would they get fired? Would they get reprimanded? If there is any reprisal for using one of these terms, that's the definition of a law. More specifically, a "Law" by definition, is a description of a limit from a legally appointed authority (like a Governor), that is enforced through coercion.

What would you call a decree from the Sovereign with veiled threats of reprisal?

Let's go a step further. Would such a law proposal, written with the outlawed words, get forwarded to the other lawmakers to be read as is supposed to happen, or would someone change it first? How would someone know to change it? Would they have word monitors to make sure no one whose job it is to type up the laws is using one of the banned words?

If there is any way of keeping the words from making it to where it is intended to go, then it is no different than any other action by a government to prevent the use of words or ideas.

The proper way to handle something like this is through choice. If the lawmakers, who make the laws, decide themselves to change the wording, that is their jurisdiction. Words aren't being banned, they are being decided upon by the right people. No harm, no foul, no Hitler analogies required.

Ms. Sanders could have easily made her case without making a decree or threatening reprisal against her decree. She had the floor, she could have made her argument. If it was a good one, the people (lawmakers in this case) might choose to follow her ideas. One person, having the power to control words or ideas, in any jurisdiction but her own voice, is the opposite of what we are fighting for.

At least it's the opposite of what I am fighting for.

It means you can't use these terms in official business of running the government

This decree, by the governor, is a legal statement, by definition, i.e. it is a statement of law.

Let's say someone whose job it was to type up laws did use one of the forbidden words. What would happen? Would they get fired? Would they get reprimanded? If there is any reprisal for using one of these terms, that's the definition of a law. More specifically, a "Law" by definition, is a description of a limit from a legally appointed authority (like a Governor), that is enforced through coercion.

What would you call a decree from the Sovereign with veiled threats of reprisal?

Let's go a step further. Would such a law proposal, written with the outlawed words, get forwarded to the other lawmakers to be read as is supposed to happen, or would someone change it first? How would someone know to change it? Would they have word monitors to make sure no one whose job it is to type up the laws is using one of the banned words?

If there is any way of keeping the words from making it to where it is intended to go, then it is no different than any other action by a government to prevent the use of words or ideas.

The proper way to handle something like this is through choice. If the lawmakers, who make the laws, decide themselves to change the wording, that is their jurisdiction. Words aren't being banned, they are being decided upon by the right people. No harm, no foul, no Hitler analogies required.

Ms. Sanders could have easily made her case without making a decree or threatening reprisal against her decree. She had the floor, she could have made her argument. If it was a good one, the people (lawmakers in this case) might choose to follow her ideas. One person, having the power to control words or ideas, in any jurisdiction but her own voice, is the opposite of what we are fighting for.

At least it's the opposite of what I am fighting for.

It means you can't use these terms in official business of running the government

This decree, by the governor, is a legal statement, by definition, i.e. it is a statement of law.

Let's say someone whose job it was to type up laws did use one of the forbidden words. What would happen? Would they get fired? Would they get reprimanded? If there is any reprisal for using one of these terms, that's the definition of a law. More specifically, a "Law" by definition, is a description of a limit from a legally appointed authority (like a Governor), that is enforced through coercion.

What would you call a decree from the Sovereign with veiled threats of reprisal?

Let's go a step further. Would such a law proposal, written with the outlawed words, get forwarded to the other lawmakers to be read as is supposed to happen, or would someone change it first? How would someone know to change it? Would they have word monitors to make sure no one whose job it is to type up the laws is using one of the banned words?

If there is any way of keeping the words from making it to where it is intended to go, then it is no different than any other action by a government to prevent the use of words or ideas.

The proper way to handle something like this is through choice. If the lawmakers, who make the laws, decide themselves to change the wording, that is their jurisdiction. Words aren't being banned, they are being decided upon by the right people. No harm, no foul, no Hitler analogies required.

Ms. Sanders could have easily made her case without making a decree or threatening reprisal against her decree. She had the floor, she could have made her argument. If it was a good one, the people could choose. One person, having the power to control words or ideas, in any jurisdiction but her own voice, is the opposite of what we are fighting for.

At least it's the opposite of what I am fighting for.

It means you can't use these terms in official business of running the government

This decree, by the governor, is a legal statement, by definition, i.e. it is a statement of law.

Let's say someone whose job it was to type up laws did use one of the forbidden words. What would happen? Would they get fired? Would they get reprimanded? If there is any reprisal for using one of these terms, that's the definition of a law. More specifically, a "Law" by definition, is a description of a limit from a legally appointed authority (like a Governor), that is enforced through coercion.

What would you call a decree from the Sovereign with veiled threats of reprisal?

Let's go a step further. Would such a law, written with the outlawed words, get forwarded to the other lawmakers to be read as is supposed to happen, or would someone change it first? How would someone know to change it? Would they have word monitors to make sure no one whose job it is to type up the laws is using one of the banned words?

If there is any way of keeping the words from making it to where it is intended to go, then it is no different than any other action by a government to prevent the use of words or ideas.

The proper way to handle something like this is through choice. If the lawmakers, who make the laws, decide themselves to change the wording, that is their jurisdiction. Words aren't being banned, they are being decided upon by the right people. No harm, no foul, no Hitler analogies required.

Ms. Sanders could have easily made her case without making a decree or threatening reprisal against her decree. She had the floor, she could have made her argument. If it was a good one, the people could choose. One person, having the power to control words or ideas, in any jurisdiction but her own voice, is the opposite of what we are fighting for.

At least it's the opposite of what I am fighting for.

It means you can't use these terms in official business of running the government

This decree, by the governor, is a legal statement, by definition, i.e. it is a statement of law.

Let's say someone whose job it was to type up laws did use one of the forbidden words. What would happen? Would they get fired? Would they get reprimanded? If there is any reprisal for using one of these terms, that's the definition of a law. More specifically, a "Law" by definition, is a description of a limit from a legally appointed authority (like a Governor), that is enforced through coercion.

What would you call a decree from the Sovereign with veiled threats of reprisal?

Let's go a step further. Would such a law, written with the outlawed words, get forwarded to the other lawmakers to be read as is supposed to happen, or would someone change it first? How would someone know to change it? Would they have word monitors to make sure no one whose job it is to type up the laws is using one of the banned words?

If there is any way of keeping the words from making it to where it is intended to go, then it is no different than any other action by a government to prevent the use of words or ideas.

The proper way to handle something like this is through choice. If the lawmakers, who make the laws, decide themselves to change the wording, that is their jurisdiction. Words aren't being banned, they are being decided upon by the right people. No harm, no foul, no Hitler analogies required.

Ms. Sanders could have easily made her case without making a decree or threatening reprisal against her decree. She had the floor, she could have made her argument. If it was a good one, the people could choose. One person, having the power to control words or ideas, is the opposite of what we are fighting for.

At least it's the opposite of what I am fighting for.

It means you can't use these terms in official business of running the government

This decree, by the governor, is a legal statement, by definition, i.e. it is a statement of law.

Let's say someone whose job it was to type up laws did use one of the forbidden words. What would happen? Would they get fired? Would they get reprimanded? If there is any reprisal for using one of these terms, that's the definition of a law. More specifically, a "Law" by definition, is a description of a limit from a legally appointed authority (like a Governor), that is enforced through coercion.

What would you call a decree from the Sovereign with veiled threats of reprisal?

Let's go a step further. Would such a law, written with the outlawed words, get forwarded to the other lawmakers to be read as is supposed to happen, or would someone change it first? How would someone know to change it? Would they have word monitors to make sure no one whose job it is to type up the laws is using one of the banned words?

If there is any way of keeping the words from making it to where it is intended to go, then it is no different than any other action by a government to prevent the use of words or ideas.

The proper way to handle something like this is through choice. If the lawmakers, who make the laws, decide themselves to change the wording, that is their jurisdiction. Words aren't being banned, they are being decided upon by the right people. No harm, no foul, no Hitler analogies required.

It means you can't use these terms in official business of running the government

This decree, by the governor, is a legal statement, by definition, i.e. it is a statement of law.

Let's say someone did use one of the forbidden words. What would happen? Would they get fired? Would they get reprimanded? If there is any reprisal for using one of these terms, that's the definition of a law. More specifically, a "Law" by definition, is a description of a limit from a legally appointed authority (like a Governor), that is enforced through coercion.

What would you call a decree from the Sovereign with veiled threats of reprisal?

Let's go a step further. Would such a law, written with the outlawed words, get forwarded to the other lawmakers to be read as is supposed to happen, or would someone change it first? How would someone know to change it? Would they have word monitors to make sure no one whose job it is to type up the laws is using one of the banned words?

If there is any way of keeping the words from making it to where it is intended to go, then it is no different than any other action by a government to prevent the use of words or ideas.

The proper way to handle something like this is through choice. If the lawmakers, who make the laws, decide themselves to change the wording, that is their jurisdiction. Words aren't being banned, they are being decided upon by the right people. No harm, no foul, no Hitler analogies required.

It means you can't use these terms in official business of running the government

This decree, by the governor, is a legal statement, by definition, i.e. it is a statement of law.

Let's say someone did use one of the forbidden words. What would happen? Would they get fired? Would they get reprimanded? If there is any reprisal for using one of these terms, that's the definition of a law. More specifically, a "Law" by definition, is a description of a limit from a legal authority, that is enforced through coercion.

What would you call a decree from the Sovereign with veiled threats of reprisal?

Let's go a step further. Would such a law, written with the outlawed words, get forwarded to the other lawmakers to be read as is supposed to happen, or would someone change it first? How would someone know to change it? Would they have word monitors to make sure no one whose job it is to type up the laws is using one of the banned words?

If there is any way of keeping the words from making it to where it is intended to go, then it is no different than any other action by a government to prevent the use of words or ideas.

The proper way to handle something like this is through choice. If the lawmakers, who make the laws, decide themselves to change the wording, that is their jurisdiction. Words aren't being banned, they are being decided upon by the right people. No harm, no foul, no Hitler analogies required.

It means you can't use these terms in official business of running the government

This decree, by the governor, is a legal statement, by definition, i.e. it is a statement of law.

Let's say someone did use one of the forbidden words. What would happen? Would they get fired? Would they get reprimanded? If there is any reprisal for using one of these terms, that's the definition of a law. More specifically, a "Law" by definition, is a description of a limit, that is enforced through coercion.

What would you call a decree from the Sovereign with veiled threats of reprisal?

Let's go a step further. Would such a law, written with the outlawed words, get forwarded to the other lawmakers to be read as is supposed to happen, or would someone change it first? How would someone know to change it? Would they have word monitors to make sure no one whose job it is to type up the laws is using one of the banned words?

If there is any way of keeping the words from making it to where it is intended to go, then it is no different than any other action by a government to prevent the use of words or ideas.

The proper way to handle something like this is through choice. If the lawmakers, who make the laws, decide themselves to change the wording, that is their jurisdiction. Words aren't being banned, they are being decided upon by the right people. No harm, no foul, no Hitler analogies required.