Seriously, what's the argument for porn being speech and expression? What is the message it's trying to convey?
Edit: Guys, I'm asking if it's speech/expression and, if so, how. Most of the comments in support of it aren't answering the question, just showing their support for free speech and expression, in general. Only one guy has made a case for it, comparing it to car shows and art. And, even though I have reservations about labeling it as art, I appreciate that he's making a case for it and not just side-stepping the issue.
Here's the thing, let's take a step back from porn with real actors for a second. Let's talk something like drawn porn images. I (in this theoretical scenario where I can draw for shit) could pick up a pencil and make porn. I can pick up that pencil, and make the most titillating thing, that is purely sexual, and meant to arouse. It's porn. Now, the question is, how is that not also speech/expression; and if it's not, at what point does the shift occur? Where does art/speech/expression end, and porn begin?
Say this porn I drew was a man and a woman, both naked, having sex. Now say I draw those same characters, in a non-sexual pose instead, with clothes on. Or maybe in a suggestive but still non-nude way, they're hugging or kissing, he's shirtless, she's in lingerie or something. I created all those things using the exact same methodology; I picked up a pencil and drew what I wanted to portray on the page. Is some protected expression, but others not?
That's the problem, it's hard to find a limiting argument. It basically always comes down to "I'll know it when I see it" and, in my opinion, that is nearly by definition a huge infringement, if we're talking any sort of regulation on what I can draw.
I don't like porn, I think it's extremely damaging to society, in fact. But, in my opinion, we can't really escape from that it is speech. Because if we're saying it's not, I think that has ramifications that are potentially even more damaging. I'd rather err on the side of too much freedom, harmful freedom; than the side of not enough freedom, on limits to expression. Porn must be treated as speech, because even if you argue it's not, it's so close to speech that saying it's not has direct impact on speech rights.
For more examples, think of things like written erotica, ASMR or other spoken porn, or even hentai. Written and spoken stuff you have the same issues as drawn; if the words you write or speak are a little different, it's speech? Again, even if you say porn isn't speech, that's still an infringement, because then you'd have to argue that you can't say/write certain things because then it wouldn't be speech.
The only real argument you could make is something along the lines of threats; you could try to argue that porn is so damaging that its creation is a direct infringement on other peoples' rights. That porn is speech, but not protected speech, because it's doing harm to others. I don't buy it though. It's too nebulous. It might very well be doing harm, but it's not direct harm, since there's no target. It's not actionable. To use the threat example, you can say absolutely vile, violent, hateful things; that's still protected. And it has to be, or nothing is. You just can't call for violence in a way people might respond, because that's harming whoever you're targeting.
I think drawn porn is the best example of my argument though. I just find it absurd that, if I draw things in a certain manner, it suddenly becomes illegal. If I add a few more lines, my expression becomes no longer protected. Again, the big issue there is, it's than saying what you can and can't produce.