This article presents four cyberspace speech controversies that involve hostile environment harassment law. The author uses these examples to draw two conclusions. First, in most of the controversies, the result should largely be driven not by the medium, but by relatively medium- independent underlying free speech principles. Second, in a system built on precedent and on litigation by many plaintiffs in many courts, speech restrictions accrete over time, with each victory for restriction laying the groundwork for broader restrictions in the future. This tendency can, of course, be resisted--but it ought not be ignored.