The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Despite this most hallowed of constitutional imperatives, both Congress and the states have found numerous occasions upon which to pass such laws, and continue to do so today. Nowhere is this tendency more poignantly exemplified than in the arena of sexually explicit speech. At present, laws restricting speech that is "obscene," "indecent," or "patently offensive" remain a significant part of our legal landscape, and persist in threatening our ability to freely express ourselves about sex and obtain information about sex-related issues. Laws regulating sexually explicit speech have undergone a series of transformations over the course of the Twentieth Century, significantly expanding the rights of adults to view, create, and sell sexually explicit works. Pornography, for example, is no longer considered "obscene," since it actually holds some "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Indeed, it is extremely rare nowadays for a person to be prosecuted for obscenity.
             Nevertheless, lawmakers have found more creative and indirect ways to place restrictions on sexually explicit speech. One very popular method involves the invocation of the government's duty to "protect" minors. This route to censorship has proven rather successful in certain contexts, such as in the sale of "girlie magazines" to minors, and in upholding the FCC's stringent prohibitions on explicit (sexual or otherwise) speech during daytime radio broadcasts. By making appeals to the need to protect minors from the purported harm caused by exposure to sexually explicit materials, legislators have been able to arm themselves with a powerful tool for censoring controversial speech.
             However, such a...