ABSTRACT
Some of the asserted costs of broad hate speech and pornography bans stem directly from the regulations themselves. Perhaps the singularly most unpersuasive argument against banning hate speech and pornography is the alarmist claim that modifying free speech doctrine to permit the suppression of hate speech and pornography will lead people down the path to totalitarianism. Although careful drafting and sensible administration might minimize misapplication, chilling effect, and discriminatory application of hate speech laws, these problems will be much harder to contain with regard to laws banning sexually graphic expression demeaning to women. The risk of prosecutorial misuse is a potential cost that hate speeches and pornography bans share. A possible cost unique to hate speech bans is that prosecutions will publicize racists and the virulent ideas they espouse. Hate speech and pornography legislation and civil rights legislation addressing root problems are not mutually exclusive remedies.
