 This traditional free speech defense assumes (generally without much argument) that pornography is a form of speech or expression, in the sense of ‘speech’ relevant to a free speech principle. However, this assumption has been questioned. Frederick Schauer (1982) argues that a free speech principle is designed to cover only acts of mental communication. “Hardcore” pornography, however, is not primarily in the business of mental communication: Its primary function is not to communicate ideas, but rather to arouse audiences sexually. In this respect, it is more akin to a mechanical sex toy than a political pamphlet. If so, then just as production and use of sex toys cannot be defended on free speech grounds, so there is no free speech defense of hardcore pornography since hardcore pornography is not “speech” in the relevant sense. If this line of argument is correct, legal restrictions on production and consumption of pornography should not be seen as raising any free speech concerns whatsoever.