>That doesn't even come close to being a proper response nor is it even within the same universe of legally satisfying the question I've posed. Hence my problem with how to approach this topic. Except it does because as I cited in the links below the history of how jews got (((porn))) to be accepted by broadening what "obscene" meant. Just like (((you're))) doing. >I know. You do not mean "free speech", you mean "limited speech." No. I mean Free Speech which does not include (((porn))) (((propaganda))) or government pushed lies of control. "Free Speech" also only applies in a homogeneous population. The moment there is disunion in the population "Free Speech" already doesn't exist. >That does not work at all. That's specific to children and it doesn't include ALL the other types of porn I mentioned with DEFINITELY constitutes porn in the damaging/harmful sense. "Nude" is not the only type of porn. Also, because of how that is defined, children are getting sexually exploited in pornographic ways under the disguise of "art" and "protected speech" because the "artist" does not intend to portray the children sexually. So you KNOW what you just submitted does not even come close to remotely satisfying my question. Except it does because it's already legal precedent in the US. To claim that "we'll know it when we'll see it" can't be expanded to include all (((porn))) is just wrong. You're lying now, and your'e doing so to appear correct while pushing (((porn))). I also NEVER ONCE said a thing about *what* porn is, that "nude" equates to porn or doesn't equate to porn. Never once. But here you are strawmanning me to make a jewish argument. Some of the best works of art on Earth include nudity, they aren't porn or pornographic in nature. Intent matters and (((porn))) has (((intent))). >If they ever tell anyone - which would be perfectly normal for them to do when talking to friends who are curious about how they keep their relationship spicy - it will get out. Or the spying that your suggestion would require (how to censor? You're going to have to spy which forces a change to the 4th Amendment if you wish to broadly censor porn across the board) would catch them even if private. Cool. So you're moving the goalposts, thanks for doing it in the first few words so I can ignore your push of (((porn))). >I literally listed examples of porn. They are not stupid. You have not submitted even a single definition of porn and you have not addressed a single point I brought up that need to be legally satisfied to submit an idea like yours (a government forced censoring of porn). "we'll" know it when we see it. That's porn. I don't care if you think that doesn't fit because it fit for many many many decades prior t now and before jewish subversion. Something doesn't have to have a specific and limited definition to have legal standing. That's wrong, not how the law works, and a jewish claim. >Knock yourself out with this: >https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/prosecuting/supreme.html > >And this: >https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1004/obscenity-and-pornography > >But you're probably referring to https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/476/ I had already linked the case(s) I meant. Of note; >...the court upheld the constitutionality of using "community standards" to determine what sexually explicit material is harmful to minors. ALL PORNOGRAPHY is extremely harmful to minors. Why you're trying to push the idea that it's not while pushing the idea that the current undefined standard of "We'll know it when we see it" with regards to the sexualization of children, as being bad is fucking atrocious. But I would not expect more from a jew user who goes around, follows me, and randomly downvotes posts for literally no reason at all.