06-11-2008, 01:08 PM
Porn is protected as free speech.
The protected expression of it is limited under local obscenity laws under a similar rationale as the incitement to riot limitations apply to other forms of speech (public welfare). Legal limitations must be narrowly tailored and cannot be more restrictive than necessary to protect suspect-classes.
Not hard to find an example:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2004/06/64028
The protected expression of it is limited under local obscenity laws under a similar rationale as the incitement to riot limitations apply to other forms of speech (public welfare). Legal limitations must be narrowly tailored and cannot be more restrictive than necessary to protect suspect-classes.
Not hard to find an example:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2004/06/64028
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law meant to punish pornographers who peddle dirty pictures to Web-surfing kids is probably an unconstitutional muzzle on free speech.
The high court divided 5-to-4 over a law passed in 1998, signed by then-President Clinton and now backed by the Bush administration. The majority said a lower court was correct to block the law from taking effect because it likely violates the First Amendment.
...
Material that is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment....