The Conclusion describes the stakes of ignoring the impact of bigotry. In particular, the ways in which bigotry impacts the lives of those who benefit from it are a focus.

Today three forces threaten to limit speech. The first pits guns against words, creating a showdown between the Second Amendment and the First. The second sees powerful speakers invoking their right to speak in order to silence other people’s speech. Third, and perhaps the most subtle, the monitoring of our digital speech by government and business chills our ability to say what we want online. Free speech will survive provided we remain vigilant in defending the speech rights of the minority against what has been called the tyranny of the majority.

Obscene speech is always unprotected speech. When states ratified the First Amendment, many already criminalized obscene speech. They saw no conflict between the amendment's speech protection and bans on obscenity and profanity. Obscenity law, as intially defined in R. v. Hicklin, assumed that one bad word could render an entire work obscene. Over time, courts tempered obscenity bans by considering a work as a whole, and whether any questionable language was offset by the work's scientific, artistic, or social importance.We look at Hicklin; the obscenity trials in the UK of Henry Vizetelly for publishing translations of Emile Zola novels; the US Senate debates in 1929–30 on an obscenity clause in a new tariff bill; and the regulation of obscenity in film, and on radio and later, TV. Although the definition of obscene language remains difficult to pin down, courts assume "you'll know it when you see it." In practice, although obscenity remains outside the law, defining what counts as obscene has swept more and more language that was once considered obscene into the category of protected speech.