To say that something is not "protected speech" is to say that the first amendment does not have any relevance to it.
Are you claiming I said that? Where?
Saying what?
My point a few posts back was that IF something is not protected speech, then the courts have no say as to reasonableness under the 1st amendment. This is a truism. Your response was that the courts do have a say because the majority does not always rule. In response to your response, I said that you must not understand my simple point, which is that the courts can find a law to be in violation of the first amendment only if it infringes upon protected speech, regardless of whether the courts think the law is reasonable. I know that we disagree as to whether depictions of libertarian on libertarian sodomy is protected speech, but that hasn't the point for awhile between us. Rather, I have simply been trying to get you to admit that IF something is not protected speech, THEN it is only the state legislature that gets to decide on the reasonableness of the law. The key word is "IF".