Pornography is the canary in the coalmine of protected speech. When you give a group the ability to censor content on the basis of "obscenity", then that group and other groups can use this to label other subjects they don't like as obscene. LGBTQ+ interest topics are especially vulnerable to this, as it is often made the case that being gay or trans is only about sex. You don't have to consume pornography yourself in order to benefit from a society that allows it.

>When did pornography become protected speech?

A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v. Attorney General of Massachusetts, 1966 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=101895573599950...)

Miller v. California, 1973 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=287180442152313...)

Jenkins v. Georgia, 1974 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=106399862265120...)

-- https://reason.com/2019/10/04/pornography-is-protected-by-th...

> Ban all the porn games ya want, I don't think they're very valuable.

Ban all the games, I don't think videogames are very valuable.

Ban all TV shows, I don't think TV shows are very valuable.

Ban all televised sports, I think sports are very boring and not very valuable.

In fact, ban all the things I don't particularly find valuable.

Strictly speaking this isn't a conventional free speech issue since the government isn't involved here, just private businesses.

That said, there's a de facto duopoly on payment processing that gives these companies near government-level power to dictate terms. Realistic alternatives don't exist and would be insanely hard to start.

That's already happening though. There's a bunch of quid pro quo for speech curtailment in the media right now. Hell, just this week Colbert lost his spot to appease the administration for the Paramount + Skydance merger. Even if it's not direct to the little guys and it's just quid-pro-quo, it's just them being smart enough to make it seem more palatable. It's the same thing.

Since when has protected speech required being valuable? And who made you the pronouncer of said value?

In what world is artistic expression not free speech? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its not protected.

>My free speech red line is criticism of govt and leaders.

Doesn't sound like you support free speech at all then if this is your red line. Criticism of politicians is needed to keep them in line. Being about to criticize the US government is true freedom.

Text is fairly comparable with speech, so it's be reasonable to argue that a pornographic novel is 'speech'.

Not so sure about 4K video footage, though. Or videogames. That's more a 'freedom of art' issue.