It _has_ been settled in court. Please read the article I linked, or one of dozens of others on the subject. It's been litigated for print, for photos, for maga

It _has_ been settled in court. Please read the article I linked, or one of dozens of others on the subject. It's been litigated for print, for photos, for magazines, for film. The distinction that you are looking for is between material that is pornographic, and material that is "obscene". The First amendment does indeed protect the expression "here is sexual content, enjoy!". https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1004/obscenity-and-pornography https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1004/obscenity-... "Obscenity refers to a narrow category of pornography that violates contemporary community standards and has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. For adults at least, most pornography — material of a sexual nature that arouses many readers and viewers — receives constitutional protection." Speech does not have to be political to be protected. There are almost certainly films on pornhub that some communities might find obscene and others that they would not. But your understanding of the test is wrong. There's a lot - a lot - of information about the standards for obscenity out there and what a trash fire it is to try to have a consistent and legible definition. But it's not about whether someone finds it "sexually gratifying", and porn on its own is not unprotected. Only obscenity escapes first amendment protection. (And child porn but presumably that goes without saying and isn't the topic under discussion)