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).
The First Amendment applies to commercial speech too.
I do not think that distinction is sustainable. A newspaper is a single-purpose product, insofar as its sole purpose is to convey information to its readers. By that sufficiently broad definition of purpose, pornography falls under the same rubric.
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.
True. At least, mostly true. Newspapers and magazines here in NY are not subject to sales taxes, but the corporate entities that produce them are taxed and regulated. I do not shop for porn, so I cannot say if pornographic products carry sales taxes, but the entities that produce pornography are also taxed and regulated, in the same manner as other publishers.
While the editorial, news and opinion content have 1st Ammendment protection, the advertising content does not, because it is commercial speech.
One may simply apply the same distinction to pornographic magazines and say that the content therein is protected by the First Amendment, while that advertisements they carry are subject to somewhat stricter regulation under the First Amendment.
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).
Any prior restraint of expression is going to be evaluated most skeptically, under existing First Amendment doctrine. Additionally, government is not empowered to define obscenity, a priori - under the state of the law as it currently exists, the government must prove "that the work in question, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, is patently offensive in light of community standards, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". Simply banning virtual child porn as obscene will fail yet again - indeed, that was the thrust of the law struck down yesterday - because it ignores context, of which Miller requires consideration.