A difficult case

I have to agree with the writer below that there is no exception for pornography in the 1st Amendment

Consider the recent case against Ira Isaacs who was sentenced to four years in federal prison last week for the “crime” of producing and selling “obscene” material. His conviction is part of several other obscenity prosecutions that began under the Bush administration in 2005 with the formation of an Obscenity Prosecution Task Force.

Isaacs produced, starred in, and distributed pornographic films through a website he advertised as "the Web's largest fetish VHS, DVD superstore." Some of his films, which depict bestiality and sexual situations involving human excrement, were shown to the jury during his trial.

Again, please take note here that the First Amendment makes no exception what-so-ever for obscenity, pornography, fetishes, or any other kind of sexual activity – all of which existed in the print media at the time the founding fathers created the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Never-mind that ruled the court; this criminal was allowed no First Amendment defense even though his “crime” consisted entirely of speech, albeit, speech which many people would find disgusting.

But again, the First Amendment makes no exceptions for disgusting speech, patently offensive speech, or prurient speech. Obscene speech is speech which shall not be abridged by the government authorities.

"They were so disgusting I couldn't even watch them," said Isaacs' own attorney, who said he averted his eyes and read a book as the 90-minute films were played in court. "But that doesn't mean they're not free speech."

Source