She's right--I don't think feminists can be free speech absolutists when faced with the depravity of porn these days.

I think we can. The difference is that I don't believe porn is "speech."

If it is considered "speech" then we should consider the vast majority of it hate speech, which is not protected and may be prosecuted. We should consider porn instigating, promoting, and enacting violence and torture of women and therefore prohibit it, as we do other threats of harm a class of individuals. We should consider it sexist, racist propaganda of the most insidious variety - the kind that embeds itself in the brain and rewires it to see pleasure rather than objectification and dehumanization. The addictive and damaging effects of porn should at the very least require a black box label, indicating the content may cause erectile dysfunction or other sexual problems related to repeat content exposure.

How is it less of a speech than, say, a Marvel movie? Sincerely curious.

I’ve made this point before, but movies have actors, special effects, CGI etc. In a fight scene, no one is actually whaling on each other. No blood is being drawn. No one is actually shot, punched or stabbed. In sex scenes, no penetration is taking place (yes I know there have been some “edgy” movies with real penetration, but mainstream movies aren’t like this). They even use body doubles and sometimes take great pains to make sure genitalia is covered.

In porn, the brutality is real. They really choke, hit and violently penetrate these women. It’s not just acting a scene.