I "get" that you don't "get" the idea underlying the First Amendment

[DirkGently]

129. So you are the arbiter of what the "other side" really means?

Someone who disagrees with you could argue you want women raped on film for the amusement of others, and do not care whether they are "consenting adults" or not. That's one risk of endorsing rape porn, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Building strawmen to burn accomplishes nothing.

I don't know why you brought this up, but you've got some of your law wrong. You most certainly cannot safely libel or slander public officials. It's just harder for them to win a suit because of the Times v. Sullivan "actual malice" ruling. They have to show you knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth.

As for private consensual sexual conduct, that's not a free speech issue. It's due process.

Setting aside for a moment what you think you know about what other people are secretly arguing for, which again, is not a basis for argument, it IS possible to object strongly to aspects of certain kinds of pornography without hiding a secret agenda to ban things. Examples I've seen raised here are cultural and artistic concerns about the prevalence of objectification, especially of women, depictions of women enjoying abuse, and the "dirty whores" memes, for example.

These are valid arguments. You can't dismiss them on the theory they only lead to bans and you can't have bans. It might be that these issues boil down to "bad art," or it may be something more. But it's hardly an assault on free speech to point out what's wrong with it.

Then there is the specific "rape porn" issue, which includes a practical concern regarding the possibility of masking literal physical harm to the people involved; in other words, the difficulty of ensuring that acts designed to look exactly like rape are not rape, and that the "consent" you speak of is not manufactured. In no industry or commercial endeavor does "free speech" ever overcome the ability to regulate to protect people from physical harm. That has nothing to do with freedom of expression whatever.