[felipeko]

There's nothing intrinsically superior to either SCOTUS or any group or organization's interpretation.

I'm pretty sure you are able to interpret it as not allowing even in the worst and most extreme cases, you just don't want to. There's no need for an argument from authority.

[SkyBelow]

I'm not trying to claim any one group is authoritative. I'm saying that I'm not aware of any group, regardless of their level of authority, who uses an interpretation that includes the worst material. Everyone (that I'm aware of) makes an exception for at least one form of material, even the ACLU or similar organizations. Even the Libertarian party, one of the groups most in favor of limiting government, is not against censorship of the worst sort of material.

[felipeko]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I am anarcho-capitalist, and I have no trouble being absolutist about freedom of speech inside one's own property.

So there's that.

[andybak]

> absolutist

Fine.

> inside one's own property.

Ah. That's quite specific. i.e. it excludes much of what's being discussed here.