wasnt too long ago that the Catholic church decided the Protestant beliefs were "spiritual pornography," and I bet similar statements were made in the reverse. Thus, doctrinal books were banned under force of law.
Problem is that I fear the slippery slope. Once we have the government start deciding what speech is acceptable, and what is not, we've started the inexorable decline towards tyranny. And eventually, the government will decide that the preaching of Biblical Christianity is unacceptable to them. The marketplace of ideas can conquer pornography. But a tyranical government deciding what may be spoken, written and communicated is likely to decide that the Gospel is unacceptable.
Here's your slippery slope.
In 1973 SCOTUS ruled, in Roe v Wade, that first trimester abortions were a right granted some damn place in the Constitution.
A bit later SCOTUS ruled, in Doe v Bolton, the right to kill babies extended all the way to through the third trimester due to an illusory "health of the mother" issue also located in the same document, somewhere.
Today we kill'em on the way out and some Professor down at Princeton is lobbying to extend that to, oh lets say, two or three years after the birth of the baby.
How's that for slippery from the same slippery clowns who have ruled virtual porn protected in that same heavy breathing document.