Oh my god do not get me STARTED on that. Basically, they struck it down on grounds of not being content-neutral - in banning women-depicted-as-servile, they were endorsing a particular, feminist, view, which was illegitimate for a state actor to do. (That is to say: rather than banning all pornography, they were only banning the sort deemed unacceptable.) Content-neutrality is an established concept in FA jurisprudence, but talk about a HORRIBLE application.