There are existing obscenity laws that are constitutional. Not all speech is allowed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

From that wikipedia page:

—-

The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[3] It has three parts:

Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[4] specifically defined by applicable state law,

Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied. (this sentence has “citation needed” though)

—-

I don’t think regular porn fits there, but yeah I am not a lawyer

edit: reading more about that case, it was actually directly about porn, and the decision was directly used against porn producers.

But courts have repeatedly held that child porn is outside the protection of free speech, along with fraud, false advertising, threats, defamation, and some other kinds of speech.

Construing recorded copulation as "speech" was always a reach. That interpretation remains only a case or two away from being discarded. Until the money runs out, I don't think it will be though.