Locking threads is a 1st ammendment issue!

There's nothing personal about it, nor am I "unrestrained".  I'm just trying to get through your thick wall of delusion regarding the plausibility of your premise.  If you were to actually upset me, which is unlikely given the ridiculous nature of your claims (who would take this seriously enough to get upset?)...I'll be sure to let you know.

Just for the sake of testing the arguments, thats all.

Thanks I look forward to it with relish! 

Of course you do.  Ironically, you and your postings fail the second test of obscenity.

Ok lets go back to Utah, if pornography is 'protected speech', how come they managed to make viewing or having it illegal?

Yes but as you pointed out, they must fail all three. . . .  ka-ching!

...but not according to you, you see, so by your own wording...never mind, I get it, it's too subtle.  Take your ka-ching and run with it.  Have your farcical fun.

Are you a 3 Stooges fan?  Benny Hill?  I'm just guessing here...

Utah anyone, what happened there? No protected speech! first amendment doesn't apply to them?

Why not according to me? Are you in your senses?  I posted the three Miller tests.

Please issue a full public apology for this outrage to my personal majesty and dignity.

3 stooges no, I do like cartoons though, Bugs Bunny, Roadrunner etc Have you tried free bird seed or rolling a boulder down a hill? what about ACME rocket boots?

Your direct quote: 

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

As for Utah, if you read your own links, you would already know that #2 above is evaluated by local populace, ergo places like Utah with sticks up their behinds will evaluate more conservatively, all while still hypocritically procuring the same content anyway in even higher amounts:

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/ci_11821265

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/23/us/erotica-special-report-technology-sent-wall-street-into-market-for-pornography.html

Now you are simply engaged in nitpicking and pedantry.  Sigh, if its the best you can do then its the best you can do.  From page 2, a direct quote where I list the three prerequisites.

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,

Now shall we add cherry picking to your ever growing list of inaccuracy and skulduggery?  I await a full public apology.

As for Utah is seems that they managed to get away with it by declaring porn a public health issue and on the basis of some rather inconclusive and contradictory 'science', as well.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/04/a-crisis-of-education/478206/

it seems that they they used a kind of public health clause to get it banned.  How creative, how interesting, how dastardly!  It seems that this amendment can be circumnavigated if one is devious enough.  Now if we could construe that this ban on religion and politics is detrimental to our mental and intellectual well being, we might have a case.

I don't think you know what nitpicking is.  Nitpicking, for example, would be pointing out that you've misused "its" for "it's" a dozen+ times in the thread thus far, which belies the facade of intelligence you attempt to paint by using words like "pedantry" and "construe"...

In any case, you're repeating yourself at this point, which to me signals that you're stumped/stuck.  There's little difference between saying "I demand a full public apology" over and over and saying "I know you are, but what am I?", and that's where I get off the bus.  Better luck next time.

Sigh. . . .some people just refuse to learn, perhaps its a communication issue? perhaps its egotistical, who can tell. 

nitpicking - fussy or pedantic fault finding. 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nitpicking

 You will note there is no criteria that it must be fault finding over small words despite your ludicrous claims.  Perhaps you are not as erudite as you think you are and its certainly an affront to all decency to be lectured by a colonial reject on the proper use of her Majesty the Queens own language which we bestowed upon you in good faith with the understanding that it shall not be bastardized.

I have not claimed to be intelligent and simply being articulate, which I am, does not make me so. Why that should be construed as a façade I cannot say.  It seems that you have little to offer here except the usual proclivity for attempting to denigrate debate to personal issues.  I did not expect an apology, I was only jesting for its clear to me that you are far too much of an egoistical windbag to issue one.  Better luck? Bwahahah, more like send the next troll in, neeeeeeext!

Haha! at last , some real sport!

Curious, we call it "Shakespeare's language".

To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,