[rayiner]

> A tyranny of the majority (the flaw in democracy) does not get to override fundamental individual rights.

“Sexual speech” isn’t a “fundamental individual right.” And if you disagree with me about that, then we have to put it to a vote, right?

[NotPractical]

By "fundamental individual right", I believe they're referring to the first amendment. How we should interpret the first amendment is not something we can put up to a vote. Only the judicial branch holds the power to interpret the law. As the root commenter noted, the Supreme Court has already decided that sexual speech is not necessarily protected by the first amendment.

At the same time, you're allowed to disagree with their decision. The Supreme Court tries its best, but there is no "100% correct" interpretation and individual justices often disagree (as they did on Miller v. California).

[donkeybeer]

You can try to put it to a vote but I doubt Article V's requirements would be met in today's environment. So what's the point that useless thought exercise?