 Liberals have traditionally defended a right to pornography on three main grounds. (The “right to pornography” here, and in what follows, means the negative right of consenting adults not to be prevented from making, publishing, exhibiting, distributing and consuming pornography in private). The first ground is freedom of speech or expression, which protects the freedom of individuals (in this case, pornographers) to express their opinions and to communicate those opinions to others, however mistaken, disagreeable or offensive others may find  them.[2] Liberals have tended to conceive of freedom, including freedom of expression, as negative freedom – as non-interference by others – rather than as positive freedom, which involves having the positive goods and facilities required to exercise the freedom.[3] Freedom is thus something that individuals have just so long as there are no coercive external obstacles – notably, physical or legal restrictions – in their way.