All those are slightly different definitions, but I wasn't being precise enough in my previous comment that the differences are important.
Protected speech is any legal speech that additionally enjoys protection from the constitution, while unprotected speech would be legal speech that is not otherwise protected. And then you have illegal stuff that is outlawed.
Courts to my knowledge, even in american, don't consider the constitution at the lower levels, just local legislation, ie any legal speech is equivalent regardless of protected status.
Specific protection status would be regulated by precedent in higher courts which do have the capacity to interprete the constitution.
Courts at every level consider the constitution. Lower level courts routinely rule on constitutional grounds.
The legislature routinely passes unconstitutional laws that purport to punish constitutionally protected speech, and those laws are routinely not enforced against that speech. (Often these laws have other constitutionally valid purposes and are still enforced for those purposes, more rarely their main purpose is to forbid protected speech and they are thrown out entirely).
It is simply not the case in the us that the legislature passing a law against speech means that the speech is unprotected and illegal.
What you'd rather want to say is "they are thrown out in court".
>It is simply not the case in the us that the legislature passing a law against speech means that the speech is unprotected and illegal.
Until a court considers otherwise, it very much is. A law is valid until a court overthrows it. Hence it requires proper police (the executive) to enforce it. Otherwise the state will just not function.
I don't know if they're arguing that, but I will argue that. Whether or not it is protected speech is a question you approach before you decide whether or not it is illegal.
For example, speech intended to cause someone to immediately assault you is not protected. It's not protected regardless of whether or not the government chooses to make it illegal, it can both not be protected speech, and still be legal. On the other hand arguing for a political position (with the goal of advancing the political position, not "arguing" a political position in an attempt to get someone to immediately punch you) is protected. It's protected regardless of whether or not congress passes a law forbidding it.
> So straight up, do you believe that the government is infringing on people's rights by banning child porn, yes or no?
This question misses the point, no, but I also wouldn't believe it was protected speech if the government had just not passed a law against it. Rather I would continue to believe that by virtue of it's lack of expressive nature and by virtue of how it harms people unable to consent that it is not protected speech.