 By far the most popular alternative to regulation recommends countering “bad” speech with more “good” speech (Gelber 2021). In principle, this might include government sponsored public education campaigns to warn consumers of the harmful effects of consuming violent and misogynistic pornography, and/or to promote a counter-message of sexual equality and respect for women. In practice, however, liberal states have generally taken little direct action to counteract inegalitarian pornography’s messages about women and sex, preferring to leave the burden of counter-speech entirely to private individuals. Even if legal regulation of violent and misogynistic pornography is unwarranted or undesirable all things considered, such state inaction in the face of pornography’s role in endorsing and perpetuating sexual inequality may be indefensible. If violent and misogynistic pornography perpetuates and reinforces harmful sexist attitudes and behavior (quite apart from whether it also leads to sexual violence) then there may be an important role for governments to play in helping to counter pornography’s harmful sexist messaging through government-backed public education campaigns. Without restricting anyone’s speech, such campaigns would lend the epistemic and political authority of the state to private opinion in countering harmful inegalitarian messages about sex. State-backed counter-speech may be especially important to inform adolescent consumers of harms associated with inegalitarian pornography, and also if private counter-speakers are silenced, so that counter-speech is otherwise liable systematically to be ignored or misunderstood (see Dotson’s discussion of “testimonial quieting” in Dotson 2011).