[potato3732842]

> yet keeps coming up as an example of speech that's permissible to suppress for some reason

Because they don't actually have an example of not imminently violence causing non-fraudulent speech that SCOTUS has upheld a ban of. And then when you call them out they'll say "but wait, it's metaphorical". If they had a better example they'd be using it.

[Braxton1980]

Child pornography

[jszymborski]

Child sexual abuse material is evidence of violence, and act of violence, all at once.

[Braxton1980]

So are videos of people being punched and stabbed. Those are legal

[jszymborski]

The sharing and owning of those videos aren't part of the violence as they are with CSAM. That feels evident, right?

[Braxton1980]

Can you explain why?