erode the freedom of speech vs subdue the freedom of speech

< Previous | Next >

leochan1212

New Member
Chinese - Cantonese
When we are talking about people's right was being deprived, would we say:
the freedom of speech was being eroded
or
the freedom of speech was being subdued?

If they are not the proper way to say it, then how should we do so?
May I have more example? Thank you very much!
 
  • owlman5

    Senior Member
    English-US
    If you tell me that the right was "eroded", I will believe that some person or group was gradually interfering with that right.

    If you tell me that the right was "subdued", I will believe that some person or group was trying to suppress that right. I wouldn't believe that the process was gradual. If you use "eroded", I will believe that the suppression was gradual and did not occur suddenly or drastically.
     

    leochan1212

    New Member
    Chinese - Cantonese
    thanks owlman and benny,
    The question is, would native speaker use "subdue" when the subject is "right" or "freedom"?
     

    leochan1212

    New Member
    Chinese - Cantonese
    How about constrained or restrained?
    Are they a good substitution to describe a right was being deprived gradually?
     

    owlman5

    Senior Member
    English-US
    The question is, would native speaker use "subdue" when the subject is "right" or "freedom"?
    Unlike Benny, I think "subdue" is possible, but I don't think it's very clear. What do you mean when you use "subdue"? Do you mean "to overcome by power or force?" If you do, I can tell you that people typically talk about "subduing an enemy". I think it's a little strange to talk about "subduing a right". "Subdue" might also mean something like "to partially suppress". Because "subdue" doesn't have one clear meaning in the context, I'd prefer another word.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top