> Porn isn't speech. It falls under obscenity. In the US, you are dreadfully wrong. Also, obscenity has a very specific, and strict, definition. The second pro

> Porn isn't speech. It falls under obscenity. In the US, you are dreadfully wrong. Also, obscenity has a very specific, and strict, definition. The second prong under the Miller test is: > Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law There is a large amount of porn that isn't going to satisfy this prong because it's not going to be sexual conduct--fetishes like BDSM could well fail to depict any sexual conduct whatsoever. It wouldn't surprise me if less than half the videos on PornHub were actually considered obscenity under the Miller test. > If banning the production and distribution of pornography is not possible with an outright ban, strangling this monstrous industry through onerous regulation is a pretty good tactic. Sorry, you don't get to curtail constitutionally-guaranteed free speech just because you don't like it, and "strangling [...] through onerous regulation" is no more viable a vehicle than an outright ban is under strict scrutiny.