 A number of commentators have developed Mackinnon’s claims in the face of Dworkin’s response, arguing that, to be valuable, freedom of speech must be more than simply being free to produce and distribute sounds and symbols that have a meaning in a language. It requires, in addition, that there are not systematic barriers to audience “uptake” of speech—i.e., that audiences are not systematically prevented from recognizing speakers’ communicative intentions (e.g., Hornsby and Langton 1998; West 2003; for replies, see Jacobson 2001; Green 1998). In different ways, these commentators argue that the traditional liberal conception of free speech, and of the right to free speech, fails to pay sufficient attention to the way language works and, in particular, to the way in which what words mean – and so what it is possible for speakers to communicate or do with their words – depends on social context, a context that pornography may help to shape and perpetuate.