Whether loli (sexualized depictions of finctional minors) is protected by the 1st amendment has never seriously been disputed by US courts, and especially not by the supreme court.
People have been charged, but they usually decided to plead guilty of their own volition. And usually because the particular people in question had much more controversial media they were being charged with posessing.
Really, the law is up for interpretation. Whenever a free speech advocate avoids difficult conversations by hiding behind "legal speech", really they just mean the interpretation of legal speech that they subscribe to, or that their hosting provider subscribes to.
And what speech do you think they interpret as being illegal, ladies and gentlemen? That's right! It's "speech I really dislike!"
I am very tired of free speech advocates who will do anything to avoid having to address this metaphorical elephant in the room.
