US free speech law is weird in that even fairly innocuous sexual content is "obviously not speech" for 1A purposes but overt threats of violence, calls for genocide, blood libel, holocaust denial etc are "not obscene".
> US free speech law is weird in that even fairly innocuous sexual content is "obviously not speech"
This really isn't true. See the Miller test[1], and in that same Wikipedia article, the example of adult content (in Utah!) being found not obscene.
Christian nationalists like to use "pornography" and "obscenity" interchangeably as rhetorical positioning, but I am hard pressed to think of a case where innocuous sexual content was held to be obscene and therefore not protected speech.
Yes. I'm pretty sure the entire reason porn is legal is it's considered a 1FA issue in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit...