 However, following Mill, liberals are generally happy to allow that considerations of the individual or common good may entitle the state to use other, so-called non-coercive means to persuade citizens to make wise or better choices. Thus, public education campaigns designed to inform citizens of the dangers of smoking or excessive alcohol consumption, or to persuade them to make “wise” choices (for example, to eat more fruits and vegetables) may be justified. While others cannot force an individual to do something (or to forbear from doing it) when they are not harming others, it is entirely legitimate to seek to advise, instruct or persuade them. So, if there are reasons to think that pornography is not good for the individual who consumes it (say, because it makes them less likely to be able to have successful loving or long-term relationships), public education campaigns to warn consumers of these dangers may be justified. Indeed, education and debate is precisely the solution that liberals typically recommend to counter any harm that pornography may cause (e.g., Feinberg 1985; Donnerstein et al. 1987; R. Dworkin 1985; for further discussion of the counter-speech response, see Gelber 2021). This solution respects the freedom of rational agents to exercise their own rational capacities in deciding what to think and how to live.