Unless you interview a random sample of experts ("80% of constitutional law professors say...") or find some privileged experts ("the Supreme Court says...") relying on expert opinions really doesn't get you anywhere useful.
E.g. 18 U.S.C. §1462. Importation or transportation of obscene matters.
He says: "Consequently, Congress explicitly indicated its intent to leave in force all the pre-existing provisions of 18 U.S.C. §1462.
In other words, giving out abortion information over the Internet, as of 1996, is illegal. Wow!"
Except when the Communications Decency Act was challenged in 1996, the government didn't even attempt to defend the enforceability of 1462(c), which prohibited the exchange of "obscene" materials over the internet. While not deleted from the code, it effectively can't be enforced because the government acquiesced on its obvious unconstitutionality. And the other parts of the CDA that they did try to defend were struck down by the Supreme Court.
You have to remember that "the law" in the U.S. isn't just what's in the statutes, it's what's in the statues + court decisions. There's a lot of garbage in the U.S. Code that can't be enforced because of court decisions like that.
What's clear to you isn't necessarily clear to the supreme court. A literal reading of the 1st amendment tells me that shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre is constitutionally protected, as is libel and distributing child pornography; fortunately courts have a habit of reading common sense into these things.
You don't need laws prohibiting arbitrary behaviors that might or might not cause any actual harm, if you just enforce strict liability. And the deterrent effect is still there, since anybody reasonable (read: the same people who would obey "the law" in the first place) would know better than to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, due to the consequences. And in the freak occurrence where somebody does shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and nothing happens, they aren't punished for a non-event.
I think it should be read like that: this professor of law predicts that it will be found unconstitutional.