Baloney! There were laws that defined and allowed nude dancing. Citizens filed suit to stop the practice, saying that nothing in the Constitution allows nude dancing. If the USSC said that nude dancing wasn't protected speech, the laws would have been struck down
If the USSC gives a narrow definition and says that political ads less than 30 days before an election are not protected speech, no laws would be struck down. Do I have that correct?
States that currently define and protect political ads less than 30 days prior to an election -- those laws can remain on the books?
False. Such a decision would not have struck down any State or local laws on nude dancing.
The State/local laws could have been changed through acts of a legislative body. A USSC decision saying nude dancing is not protected by the First Amendment leaves the issue to State/locals to decide.
Same with the Second Amendment. A USSC ruling saying the Second Amendment does not protect an individual RKBA leaves the decision to the States/locals. Just like it is currently.
If the USSC gives a narrow definition and says that political ads less than 30 days before an election are not protected speech, no laws would be struck down. Do I have that correct?
Correct. It would be left to the appropriate legislative body to change or not change such laws.
States that currently define and protect political ads less than 30 days prior to an election -- those laws can remain on the books?
Correct. Why would they not? Such a ruling does not mean States cannot protect such speech. It means they are not restrained by the First Amendment if they choose to ban it.