I find it odd that you suggest that I am somehow stupid, and you smart, when I was able to read and parse the ruling and you were not.
I also explained to you why that question you asked seems disingenuous, including referencing the judgment.
This law was not about preventing children from seeing pornography. It was about effectively banning pornography on the state. Same reason voter ID isn’t about limiting voter fraud, but about putting hurdles in the way of people who would otherwise vote against the party that supports voter ID.
Only one of us is being stupid here, and it isn’t the person that is here explaining the judgment.