I believe the current precedent is that porn is not speech.

Wrong. Porn is considered protected speech unless it is considered “obscene” (which is an incredibly difficult bar to meet), and even possession of obscene material in one’s home is protected.

C’mon, people, these issues are trivial to look up the facts about. There’s no excuse for ignorance here. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/obscenity-and-pornog...

▲

inigyou a day ago | parent [-]

So nobody has ever gone to jail for possessing child porn?

▲

otterley 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Of course CSAM isn’t protected. This story isn’t about CSAM though.

▲

inigyou 16 hours ago | parent [-]

So porn isn't protected speech?

	▲	otterley 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Porn is protected speech, with the exception of CSAM and "obscene" materials. You do understand how exceptions work, don't you? If you have further questions, ask an attorney who specializes in First Amendment law. I also recommend law school.

▲

a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

gamblor956 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Porn is speech. This has been litigated several times by SCOTUS.

Obscenity is not speech.

▲

inigyou 19 hours ago | parent [-]

It appears that in Texas, porn is considered obscenity.

	▲	otterley 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Texas can't make that decision unilaterally. They'll have the First Amendment to contend with. Besides, that's not even what this case is about. This is about access to pornography, not about the right to produce or disseminate it with or to consenting adults. Even if the latter rights are protected under the First Amendment, the courts have never said that Federal and state governments cannot restrict minors from accessing it.