Again, I don't think this is valid, because, in the balance, a) children are more protected by a stronger First than by stronger KP laws and b) a ban on all KP isn't the less invasive and less costly way of reconciling the social goal that children not be exploited and the First rights of pronz.

And yes, carving an exception is better, because dismissing the contradiction out of hand practically closes every recourse, in the future, against a new case that forces a new interpretation. Which is why and how the Canadian and Australian laws sustain - by denying a contradiction between KP laws and free speech protections.

Also, historically what we know as the First was actually the third. The original First and Second weren't passed with the rest of the Bill, bumping the other ten up.