 The traditional liberal conception of freedom of speech assumes that people are free to speak just so long they are not prevented from producing meaningful sounds and scrawls that others are not prevented from hearing or viewing. But we might wonder whether this is sufficient to protect free speech, even by liberals’ own lights. A society that permitted the distribution of meaningful sounds and symbols, but somehow managed systematically to prevent those sounds and symbols from being comprehended by audiences, would be little better as far as free speech values are concerned than a society that simply prevented distribution of meaningful noises altogether. Either way, speakers are prevented from communicating their opinions to others, which defeats what liberals take to be the point of free speech: the right of speakers not to be prevented by the actions of other agents from communicating their feelings and opinions to others who might wish to hear them (West 2003).