> 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 tha

> 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. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test