You’re making this too easy. What I’m doing is making a distinction of marketing sex for money, either through prostitution or pornography. Videos of Tucker Carlson is not of him having sex is it? He is merely speaking, which is protected under the constitution. I think you must know the difference, but are unwilling to acknowledge it.
Buying a woman a drink at a bar is marketing sex for money, and you can’t claim tucker talking is legally allowed but then say a nudie magazine is not, also prostitution was literally legal everywhere in the united states up until the early 20th century