Locking threads is a 1st ammendment issue!

you can't discriminate against free speech, or anything else that isn't a human being or set of human beings.

Did not the government act against the Westboro baptist church for demonstrating at the funerals of those killed in action by limiting the distance that they had to maintain.  It is generally understood that free speech is uttered by humans making your point that one cannot discriminate against free speech or anything that is not human a rather weak semantic argument.

Obscenity has never been protected by the first amendment.  Pornography is not art.

You shifted your argument from free speech (hello, thread title) to something else then tried to claim I was not entirely correct.  Except that I was, in fact, entirely correct.  So, if you want to weasel around in your arguments, fine...but you need to own it.  Your first attempt, free speech, is a failure.  Your second attempt, discrimination against "free speech", is also a failure, though I doubt you are done with this one yet...

Yes I have acknowledged that it failed, so what? your claim that private companies and organisations can discriminate in any way they see fit was and is inaccurate, I pointed out why it was inaccurate with reference.  Discrimination against free speech has not failed yet although it might and nothing you have proffered so far has demonstrated that.  Weak semantic arguments are not going to cut it, I am sorry.  Are you aware that argument is proffered simply for testing a premise? 

I am not disputing that its on the internet I am disputing that its art.  I repeat it again obscenity is not protected by the 1st amendment.

The Supreme Court has ruled that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, but the courts still need to determine whether material in question in each case is in fact obscene.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law

We agree that there's a weak argument here, I guess.  Your Baptist anecdote really has no bearing whatsoever on any claim regarding chess.com.  The cordoned off area or whatever would have been in place in any similar circumstances regardless of where this event happened.

Also on pornography v art and the legality of protected speech, this is of some interest.

The legal distinction between artistic nudity and permitted commercial pornography (which includes sexual penetration) deemed "protected forms of speech", versus "obscene acts", which are illegal acts and separate from those permitted areas, is usually predicated on cultural factors. However, no such specific objective distinction exists outside of legal decisions in federal court cases where a specific action is deemed to fit the classification of obscene and thus illegal. The difference between erotic art and (protected) commercial pornography, vs. that which is legally obscene (and thus not covered by 1st Amendment protection), appears to be subject to decisions within local US federal districts and contemporary moral standards.

So what do we have? a situation where the artistic works of the greatest European masters are juxtaposed beside some dude in a basement in California making pornography? and is at the whim of shifting sands of moral expediency?  Really? 

the so called Miller test. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

1. does pornography appeal to prurient interest? yes, then its defined as obscene.

2. does it taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value , yes then its obscene

3. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,

yes, then its obscene and illegal!

Actually it may be you that does not seem to get it, have you considered the possibility? Pornography may be protected speech, obscenity is not.  Has not Utah made pornography illegal and handed out fines and sentences for those caught possessing it but even viewing it?  this could hardly be the case if its truly protected speech.

Hey Sherlock, your own Wikipedia link clearly states that the Miller test requires that all 3 need to be true to be considered obscene...so your additions of "yes, then it's defined as obscene" on the first two points are completely false.  Your implication is that each of the 3 defines obscenity, but that only with all 3 does it meet the test of being obscene at a level that is "illegal".  That's BS.

Maybe it's just the software developer in me, but the imprecision of your arguments is startling.

What does the Constitution have to do wih an internet website?

I have acknowledged that nudity in itself does not construe a charge of obscenity, made earlier in the thread.  However whether an image passes the Miller test remains to be seen. There is huge difference between Titians Venus of Urbino and even some so called soft porn where a model may even be bikini clad but the emphasis is clearly overtly sexual.

As for chess dot com they have a vested interest in preventing such because the site also appeals to children wanting to play chess.  The same cannot be said to prevent the discussion of politics and religion though, can it, for even in schools and colleges children may be encouraged to discuss some aspects of these subjects.

My dear sir, please try to restrain yourself, we are simply engaged in testing the premise of some ideas, its not a personal thing, please lets not get personal.

better arguments? I'll need a miracle!

Actually the original OP was made tongue in cheek, why no one seemed to note that I had changed the first amendment I cannot say.  

Its tongue in cheek dude, not the real 1st amendment, just sayin! although the first amendment, the real one guarantees protected speech I was intent on exploring what rights if any we have.  We don't have any apparently.