“Let me ask you this, do you think the founders included “pornography” vulgar art “urine jesus” and the like as a form of constitutionally protected free speech?”
No, I don’t think so. But, ultimately, it’s juries who decide what is or isn’t obscene, and the Founders would certainly be horrified by what modern people are prepared to tolerate.
True story:
Some years ago I was part of the jury for an obscenity trial here in the UK. The English definition of obscenity is “material that tends to deprave or corrupt a significant proportion of those who are likely to view it.”
The film in question was vile and disgusting beyond belief and I’m not going to bother you with the details. After we’ve finished watching it, by which point one of the female jurors was on the verge of throwing up, Defence Counsel stood up, smiled sweetly at us, and said: I know you were shocked and sickened by what you saw, but were you “depraved and corrupted” by it?
What do you do in such circumstances? Against our better judgement, we had to say No and acquit. Did we contribute to the coarsening of society? Probably. But the way these obscenity laws are phrased puts you in an impossible position.
We're talking about letting the citizens of Texas make their own rule of law, enforcing said rule of law, and telling the federal government (and british trolls) to go get bent "weather they like it or not" as the libtards like to say..