She has failed to perform any kind of speech act.

The man will recognise that she has refused to consent, but will resolve to have sex with her anyway.

The man will not hear what she is saying.

The man will believe that "no" means "yes".

The suspension is justified, as it is only temporary.

The suspension is not justified, as all free speech is valuable.

The suspension is not justified, as genuine free speech is valuable.

The suspension is justified, as her opinion is demonstrably false.

The prohibition was not justified, as all free speech is valuable.

The prohibition was justified, as a work of fiction cannot express genuine opinions.

The prohibition was not justified, as offence is not harmful.

The prohibition was justified, as society at that time was not morally prepared for such a novel.

Because free speech can help us better understand our own opinions

Because free speech can help uncover previously unknown facts

Because truth that goes unchallenged is not meaningfully true

Because truth is subjective, and everyone has their own truth

In order for Langton's claim that pornography silences woman to be true, it must also be true that pornography is authoritative when it comes to sex.

Pornography is only authoritative when it comes to sex if the government proclaims that it is.

Langton's claims that pornography subordinates and silences woman are true regardless of whether pornography is authoritative when it comes to sex.

The claim that pornography silences women is more significant than the claim that pornography subordinates women, because it concerns women in general rather than women acting in pornography.

This is immoral, because it violates Milo's freedom

This is immoral, because Milo is suffering

This is morally justified, because it protects the birds' rights

This is morally justified, because Milo's suffering is outweighed by the suffering he would inflict on birds