...except the I Amendment is broad, but not absolute. For example, making a death threat to someone is not protected speech.
Very rarely is political speech unprotected--usually it's if said speech is considered so hateful, provocative, or violent that the average reasonable person believes somebody is placed in harm's way. This is why calling for a politician to be assassinated isn't "free speech" but burning an American flag generally is.
As for pornography, the Supreme Court established the Miller Test, but aside from that, obscenity is largely in the eye in the beholder (I believe Mr. Justice Holmes made a comment along the lines of, "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it")--meaning that as long as the porno depicts mutually-consenting adults and passes the Miller Test--meaning the work as a whole as found by the average Joe while using contemporary community standards:
-Does not appeal to the prurient interest,
-Does not depict or describe in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
-Contains something redeeming in the form of possessing serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value
pornography generally is not considered obscene speech and thus out of bounds in re the I Amendment.
Seriously, look at taking a civics class at the local community college. You might learn something for a change...
