ABSTRACT
This chapter describes significant indirect cost of modifying current doctrine to permit hate speech and pornography bans—a general weakening of the constitutional protection afforded debate on matters of public issues. There is always the possibility of adopting an ad hoc, unprincipled rationale for suppressing hate speech and pornography, some much-hedged "exception" that has the appearance of principle but that does not bear up to analysis. Like the "harmful tendency" rationale, the psychic-injury rationale applies to more than just hate speech and thus could have a considerable dampening effect on the robustness of public discourse. A recently minted rationale for suppressing hate speech and pornography posits that hate speech silences minorities and pornography silences women. Another currently popular rationale for the suppression of hate speech and pornography is the "conflict of constitutional rights" rationale. With respect to the relationship between public discourse and pornography, free speech doctrine has already separated the wheat from the chaff.
