This is true. Pornography fits this definition to a "T". Of course, the problem is that a newspaper also fits that definition perfectly, although we are less inclined to barf if I give my friends my newspaper after I read it. :^)
Should newspapers be unprotected by the first Amendment also?
And they are not sole purpose products, being made up of various sections catering to various sectors of the reading public, etc.
And of course the letters to the editors and editorials, etc, all of which clearly come under 1st ammendment protections.
It should also be noted that newspapers are regulated in many ways (actual manufacture/processing, inks, copyrights, etc.) and they are taxed, as are the cigarette and alcohol manufactures, wholesalers, distributors etc.
While the editorial, news and opinion content have 1st Ammendment protection, the advertising content does not, because it is commercial speech.
Pornography could indeed be treated the same as alcohol and cigarettes and pharmaceuticals, if good men willed to make it so.
Obscenity is exempted from 1st Ammendment protection, so I guess another avenue is to legally define virtual child porn as obscene and outlaw it that way, (with significant jail time).