From your link:

> In practice, pornography showing genitalia and sexual acts is not ipso facto obscene according to the Miller test.

I'm not sure you can make the statement that pornographic materials aren't protected speech. I don't think you can make the statement that they are though.

“Protected sexual speech” is such a bizarre phrase. Nobody who wrote the first amendment envisioned that. How can you say the First Amendment prohibits a democratically elected legislature from banning something that was never envisioned as being protected by the First Amendment by the people who wrote it? It makes no sense. Surely the views of either the writers of the first amendment of the past, or the democratically elected legislature in the present, must prevail.

This is a good point. A lot of people don't realize online pornography is arguably federally illegal, just totally unenforced.

Freedom often isn’t.