Good old Jesse Sharpless was, in 1815, arrested and charged with obscenity after it came to light that he had been charging some of his neighbors for the privilege of viewing his prized possession, an oil painting depicting a man and woman engaged in intercourse. Despite there being no Pennsylvania statute against obscenity, the court found that obscenity was a common-law offense, and his conviction was upheld upon review.
Of course, nowadays, just as back then, obscenity is still a recognized exception to First Amendment free specch guarantees. Just as in 1815, obscenity is still not protected speech. So as far as that's concerned, you're wrong about the disagreement between that court and modern courts.
Secondly, 1815 was long before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. I know discussion of the validity of the 14'th is a popular topic around here, but let me simply summarazie by saying that, in 1815, there was little reason to think that the First Amendment applied (or even should apply) to state actors, rather than federal ones. Nowadays, of course, the answer to to that question is completely the opposite. The difference between then and now is that now, the Bill of Rights applies to the states per the 14'th Amendment, but back then, it didn't. QED.
"summarazie" = summarize
You are mistaken however.
First of all pornography was not considered a protected right under the 1st Amendment. Every State had laws against obscenity, and they were enforced.
Sharpless was not charged just because he was selling the viewing of his picture, but because he was destroying the moral fabric of society.
This court is...invested with power to punish not only open violations of decency and morality, but also whatever secretly tends to undermine the principles of society...
Whatever tends to the destruction of morality, in general, may be punishable criminally. Crimes are public offenses, not because they are perpetrated publically, but because their effect is to injure the public. Buglary, though done in secret, is a public offense; and secretly destroying fences is indictable.
Hence it follows, that an offense may be punishable, if in it's nature and by it's example, it tends to the corruption or morals; although it not be committed in public.
If the privacy of the room was a protection, all the youth of a city might be corrupted, by taking them, one by one, into a chamber, and there inflaming their passions by the exhibition of lascivious pictures. In the eye of the law, this would be a publication, and a most pernicious one.
Although every immoral act, such as lying, ect... is not indictable, yet where the offense charged is destructive of morality in general...it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of government invalid...
The Corruption of the public mind, in general, and debauching the manners of youth, in particular, by lewd and obscene pictures exhibited to view, must necessarily be attended with the most Injurious consequences...
No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people, secret poision cannot be thus desseminated.
As you can see by the reasoning the court used, they were opposed (just as the laws of the time) to immoral acts that destroyed society.
As for your 14th Amendment argument.
The 14th amendment was never ratified properly, and to top it all off, I find it amusing that libertarians who claim to be champions of the constitution, would support the 14th amendment, especially since it is the source of federalism and federal power, and since it was NEVER Ratified Constitutionally.
Follow this link The invalid 14th Amendment