Moreover, this view does not consider the silencing effects of certain speech, and the resulting damage to freedom of speech. In those instances, the First Amendment should prevent such abuse. It may even have to silence the voices of some in order to hear the voices of others. Sometimes there is simply no other way. Professor Fiss thus challenges the conventional notion that liberty must always trump other constitutional values, namely democracy and equality.
Equal participation is a prerequisite for free and open public debate.
You have been so abusive in the way you have put your point that many have withdrawn from the debate altogether. But it is here that the analysis encounters some problems. Professor Fiss does not take the easy way out by claiming that hate speech, pornography, and campaign finance are not speech and, thus, are not deserving of any First Amendment protection. Rather, the author finds all three types of expression speech and worthy of some protection. Campaign finance is speech.