o7   that's essentially thomas' position and it's hard to poke holes in it, americans never extended legal protections to obscenity. however, we extended absolute protection to a man's "paper's and effects" and i don't think giving consenting parties remote access to a filing cabinet via tcp/ip protocol makes it any less worthy of protection. also, no judge can be trusted to not decide that, e.g., "speech critical of hillary clinton" is now obscene instead of political. the harms, including the construction of a vast censorship apparatus prone to abuse by future administrations, and the guaranteed incidental censorship of political speech even if the system isn't abused, vastly outweigh the benefits.
United States