You are still desperately clinging to all of your original strawmen

What straw men? Point them out. Be specific.

Most people in this thread seem to oppose the idea of banning porn for purely practical reasons

I've seen no logical justification for why porn is speech or why porn should be allowed under free speech. I've explicitly asked why people view this way, and gotten no answer. I've also described how porn is dangerous and destructive upon people in my longer reply, which you said I wouldn't give.

blanket bans of ubiquitously available artefacts don't work and have never worked

Yes they have. You can't completely eliminate a thing, but you can prevent a lot of it. Just because you can't completely eliminate a thing doesn't mean you shouldn't. Murder is illegal but murders still happen. Are you seriously suggesting we should make murder legal, using your own argument? You're making a fallacious argument. You're also conflating modern government enforcement, government which is both inept and evil, often secretly participating in things they "ban" (like drugs), with what could be legitimately banned by a genuine government. Granted, I wouldn't trust modern Western governments to ban porn, or much less anything else. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, or it could never be done.

or out of a general distrust of government and power structures

With current governments, I agree. That doesn't mean, however, that people don't have a right, individually and collectively, to enforce their views upon whatever group they're a part of.

or a belief that individuals are ultimately responsible for their own moral upkeep.

Every individual is responsible for their own actions, but that doesn't disprove anything I've said. If you take your argument to its conclusion, it means you're ultimately arguing for the removal of all laws, because each individual is "ultimately responsible" for their own decisions.

As for your assertion that only porn consumers oppose banning porn, I don't consume porn and still oppose banning it.

Then you're in the extreme minority. Every single person that I've argued with and seen arguing for porn have been porn consumers. Many initially deny it, but then quietly admit to it when pressed.

and because I think people should be free to earn a living from pornography if they want to

So, you're fine with people earning money through other immoral actions as well? How far do you take it? Selling drugs, murder, pedophilia, forming monopolies, colluding with government? If you truly believe people should be free to make their own choices and morality, should you not be fine with those, so people can "earn a living". I imagine your defense will be "but porn isn't hurting anyone", and you'd be wrong. Porn hurts people. It's a control mechanism. It hurts men, women, and society itself. Just because it's less immediate doesn't make it less true.

And even though I am not making and have never made the argument that porn is speech and falls under free speech protection, you certainly appear to believe both, because you have just made the argument, in the context of supporting a prohibition on porn, that there are or should be exceptions to total free speech.

You either didn't understand my comment or are intentionally taking what I said out of context. I'm not sure. In either case, I'll restate that porn isn't speech, isn't art, and shouldn't be allowed under free speech laws. Nowhere in that statement do I imply that porn is speech. I'm arguing against the position that "porn is speech". It's not. I only said that there are exceptions to absolute free speech, because even if one assumes porn is speech, to give room for multiple interpretations, it still shouldn't be allowed under free speech laws.

You are still desperately clinging to all of your original strawmen

What straw men? Point them out. Be specific.

Most people in this thread seem to oppose the idea of banning porn for purely practical reasons

I've seen no logical justification for why porn is speech or why porn should be allowed under free speech. I've explicitly asked why people view this way, and gotten no answer. I've also described how porn is dangerous and destructive upon people in my longer reply, which you said I wouldn't give.

blanket bans of ubiquitously available artefacts don't work and have never worked

Yes they have. You can't completely eliminate a thing, but you can prevent a lot of it. Just because you can't completely eliminate a thing doesn't mean you shouldn't. That's a fallacious argument to make. You're also conflating modern government enforcement, government which is both inept and evil, often secretly participating in things they "ban" (like drugs), with what could be legitimately banned by a genuine government. Granted, I wouldn't trust modern Western governments to ban porn, or much less anything else. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, or it could never be done.

or out of a general distrust of government and power structures

With current governments, I agree. That doesn't mean, however, that people don't have a right, individually and collectively, to enforce their views upon whatever group they're a part of.

or a belief that individuals are ultimately responsible for their own moral upkeep.

Every individual is responsible for their own actions, but that doesn't disprove anything I've said. If you take your argument to its conclusion, it means you're ultimately arguing for the removal of all laws, because each individual is "ultimately responsible" for their own decisions.

As for your assertion that only porn consumers oppose banning porn, I don't consume porn and still oppose banning it.

Then you're in the extreme minority. Every single person that I've argued with and seen arguing for porn have been porn consumers. Many initially deny it, but then quietly admit to it when pressed.

and because I think people should be free to earn a living from pornography if they want to

So, you're fine with people earning money through other immoral actions as well? How far do you take it? Selling drugs, murder, pedophilia, forming monopolies, colluding with government? If you truly believe people should be free to make their own choices and morality, should you not be fine with those, so people can "earn a living". I imagine your defense will be "but porn isn't hurting anyone", and you'd be wrong. Porn hurts people. It's a control mechanism. It hurts men, women, and society itself. Just because it's less immediate doesn't make it less true.

And even though I am not making and have never made the argument that porn is speech and falls under free speech protection, you certainly appear to believe both, because you have just made the argument, in the context of supporting a prohibition on porn, that there are or should be exceptions to total free speech.

You either didn't understand my comment or are intentionally taking what I said out of context. I'm not sure. In either case, I'll restate that porn isn't speech, isn't art, and shouldn't be allowed under free speech laws. Nowhere in that statement do I imply that porn is speech. I'm arguing against the position that "porn is speech". It's not. I only said that there are exceptions to absolute free speech, because even if one assumes porn is speech, to give room for multiple interpretations, it still shouldn't be allowed under free speech laws.