requirement that the defendant intend his or her speec 631, 634, 141 Ill. Dec. 444 (1990) (“luring or attempted luring of a child into an automobile for a criminal purpose is in no way protected by the first amendment”); People v. Ruppenthal, 331 Ill. App. 3d 916, 771 N.E.2d 1002, 1005-06, 265 Ill. Dec. 43 (2002) (rejecting First Amendment challenge because knowingly attempting to solicit a person believed to be a child has no constitutional protection); State v. Green, 397 S.C. 268, 724 S.E.2d 664, 668 (2012) (recognizing “speech used to further the sexual exploitation of children has been routinely denied constitutional protection as the State has a compelling interest in preventing the sexual abuse of children”); State v. Robins, 2002 WI 65, 253 Wis. 2d 298, 646 N.W.2d 287, 297 (<HOLDING>). ¶19 Finding that speech made with the intent
holding that the first amendment does not protect obscenity or pornography produced with actual children holding that the first amendment does not protect child enticements whether initiated over the internet or otherwise holding first amendment does not protect nonexpressive conduct holding that where the first amendment does not protect a certain activity there can be no first amendment right of association to engage in that activity holding that the first amendment does not protect true threats against the president