I'll try one more time: The First Amendment has no relevance whatsoever to state restrictions on pornography IF pornography is not protected speech. Period. The state governments can pass any legislation that they would like. Without the need for First Amendment considerations, its for the voters, not the courts, to decide what is "reasonable". This are simple constitutional principles.
We're not getting anywhere on this or any other issues, so have a nice day.
I'm interested in whether (assuming, as anyone with common sense must, that pornography is "protected speech"), does the Federal government have the right to regulate pornography as they see fit pursuant to the commerce clause?
This is a closer issue, but I think it is clear that internet porn falls under the definition of interstate commerce as that term was originally intended.
In other words you think the power to regulate "among the several states" includes the power to prohibit most anything. Congress insists that they can prohibit machine guns with that power; -- do you?
I'll try one more time:
The First Amendment has no relevance whatsoever to state restrictions on pornography IF pornography is not protected speech. Period.
The state governments can pass any legislation that they would like.
Without the need for First Amendment considerations, its for the voters, not the courts, to decide what is "reasonable".
Your bold 'try' failed, miserably.
States cannot pass any laws that are repugnant to our supreme Law of the Land. This principle is made clear in Article VI, and in the 14th Amendment.
This are simple constitutional principles.
Indeed, - the Constitution is based on a presumption of liberty. -- Instead you want State voters, the 'majority will', "-- to decide what is reasonable --".
Sorry kid, but a democratic majority does not rule in the USA.