Kingfish

If you want the long winded version of the argument it would be that there are less restrictive and equally or more effective means for the government to achieve the same goal of blocking kids from online porn. You would cite existing case law (like where the librarians lost the filters case) as the Supreme Court found that filters were an effective way to keep kids from seeing porn and you would also revisit the COPPA cases and point out how this new law is as restrictive and more restrictive in some ways as COPPA which the court found to be too restrictive. Also the lumping of porn in with the sale of Alcohol and Tobacco is highly suspect as you have no constitutional right to disseminate those materials, but you do have a right to disseminate protected speech.