[Moral Hazard]

"So you're in favor of local laws against obscenity being enforced then and keeping federal judges out of it, right? Or, if not in favor of them, you recognize that they are completely constitutional, am I correct?"

No, the 14th amendment was passed after that, restricting the ability of states to limit our rights, which includes the right to free speech.

"Furthermore, with the advent of porn via mass circulation magazine and even moreso via the internet, it became an interstate commerce issue which makes it subject to federal regulation"

Speech can be regulated as commerce? So the commerce clause trumps the first amendment?

[Antoninus]

No, the 14th amendment was passed after that, restricting the ability of states to limit our rights, which includes the right to free speech.

Restricting, but not eliminating. Plus, and this gets us back to the point of the argument, this is only relevant if you consider a video of a guy sodomizing another guy to be "speech." You obviously believe that it is. I don't think I'm that far off in reckoning that the Founding Fathers would have been utterly repulsed by the notion that the First Amendment protects such "speech." And the SCOTUS affirmed this opinion in both Chaplinsky and Roth, only to have the precedent overturned in decisions of the 60s and 70s.

Speech can be regulated as commerce? So the commerce clause trumps the first amendment?

Again, this is obscenity, not speech as defined by the First Amendment. Unless you consider a magazine with photos of a woman being mounted by a horse to be "speech." Thus, the commerce clause isn't trumping anything here. Big porn is a multi-billion dollar industry which should absolutely be regulated to the hilt by the Feds.