And you believe the founding fathers and drafters of the constitution and the bill of rights intended for naked people parading around for money and someone else's jollies qualifies as SPEECH?
Yes. They had pornography back in those days, yet the founding fathers and drafters of the constitution and the bill of rights knew that it shouldn't be outlawed -- so they didn't. Your "argument" is childish at best.
"Two centuries later, smutty drawings and bawdy tales were known to have helped George Washington and his troops endure the long, bitter winter at Valley Forge. The legend of Washington chopping down a cherry tree is now known to be the sanitized version of a lewd story involving the father of our country and Betsy Ross, though his vaguely worded explanation to Martha--"I was trying to earn my stripes"--is probably closer to the truth than it might at first appear."
David Gianatasio, A Brief History of Pornography, Sweet Fancy Moses
"Since the beginning of time man has been fascinated by the sight of other human beings indulging in sexual activity. Pornography can be traced through the centuries from mere etchings in the walls of caves, to its first printed appearance on post cards, to early photography, magazines, 8mm movies, and finally to the video quality of today. (The Age of Pornography. Online)."
A DISCUSSION OF PORNOGRAPHY
Every single state OUTLAWED AND PROSECUTED PORNOGRAPHY in early America.
You site a book that promotes pornography, and take it as fact.
Why don't you look at the real facts, like the Commonwealth V Sharpless case I quoted above. Where several men were prosecuted and Convicted for Pornography.
So you are mistaken as most typical libertarians are. THE FOUNDERS DID BAN PORNOGRAPHY!!
The defendant argued that since his acts were "private," not "public," the law could not reach him. The Court disagreed. Here are the facts:
Jesse Sharpless . . . designing, contriving, and intending the morals, as well of youth as of divers other citizens of this commonwealth, to debauch and corrupt, and to raise and create in their minds inordinate and lustful desires . . . in a certain house there . . . scandalously did exhibit and show for money . . . a certain lewd . . . obscene painting representing a man in an obscene . . . and indecent posture with a woman, to the manifest corruption and subversion of youth and other citizens of this commonwealth.
Many things occurring in private have a public effect and therefore are punishable.
The 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. . . . [W]hatever tends to the destruction of morality in general may be punished criminally. Crimes are public offenses not because they are perpetrated publicly, but because their effect is to injure the public. Burglary, though done in secret, is a public offense; and secretly destroying fences is indictable . . . hence, it follows, that an offence may be punishable if in its nature and by its example it tends to the corruption of morals; although it be not committed in public.
The defendants are charted with exhibiting and showing . . . for money, a lewd . . . and obscene painting . . . . [I]f they privacy of the room was a protection, all the youth of the city might be corrupted by taking them one by one into a chamber and there inflaming their passions by the exhibition of lascivious pictures. . . .
[A]lthough every immoral act, such as lying, etc., is not indictable, yet where the offence charged is destructive of morality in general . . . it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of the 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 poison cannot be thus disseminated.