Free All Speech

First, please read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

The United States Supreme Court considers obscenity to be unprotected speech!

This site will critically examine this concept and reveal that it lacks a logical and constitutional basis that remains valid in the modern age.

Link	Description
Age Verification	Exploring the constitutional principles violated by age verification laws.
Federal Precedents	Examination of historic federal obscenity precedents.
Minnesota Constitution	Will the Minnesota State constitution protect more speech than the federal?
Obscenity Properties	Challenging the unique properties of obscenity that motivate its restriction.
Reductio Ad Absurdum	Proof, by reduction to the absurd, that obscenity is protected speech.

In the 2025 federal supreme court case Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, Americans received the official explanation as to why it is acceptable for the government to abridge the freedom of speech in regards to sexual content. They explained that even though sexual content is generally protected for adults, it is considered "obscene" with respect to minors, creating a hybrid speech category.

Since obscenity is traditionally treated as "unprotected speech", the government may outright ban it. This means they may ban sexual content for minors, even though they may not do so for adults. Under these circumstances, they reason that:

"It follows that no person—adult or child—has a First Amendment right to access speech that is obscene to minors without first submitting proof of age."

This has various unacceptable consequences.

• Adults can no longer exercise their full free speech rights over the internet without submitting to privacy-invasive age verification procedures.
• Speech of a sexual nature will inevitably be chilled across the internet, since many states want to allow private lawsuits against adult websites that don't implement age verification.
• Parents do not possess the right to decide that any particular content is acceptable for their specific child, regardless of age or personality.
• Even teenagers will be blocked, by default, from content that is at all sexual in nature, without any reasonable way for their parents to provide them access to the blocked content.

These consequences may very well be acceptable to those who harbor animosity towards certain activities that other people have chosen to enjoy, but it is inconsistent with both federal and state constitutional guarantees.