The presence of advertisements on a site does not make the site content. Whether a site primarily hosting sexual content uses advertisements also changes nothin

The presence of advertisements on a site does not make the site content. Whether a site primarily hosting sexual content uses advertisements also changes nothing about whether it's constitutional for the government to mandate that a site publish particular "health warnings" about the non-ad sexual content on the site. Non-obscene porn (okay for adults, not okay for children) is protected by the First Amendment, while obscenity (determined by the Miller test [1]) is not protected (not okay for adults, not okay for children) by the First Amendment. The Fifth Amendment's decision that some sexual material can obscene only when viewed/read by children and non-obscene when viewed by adults relates to the mandated age verification part of the Texas law, and has little if any relation to the mandated "health warnings" (which are for adults, since children aren't allowed to be on the site). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test