I've done a lot of soul searching on this and after reading a primer on free speech from Stanford University, amongst other publications, I have a more solid stance on this particular topic. The primer is located here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/ . They mention pornography a number of times and address issues like extreme porn and degrading women in porn.

I have not seen any of the red rose material. I do not trust our current administrations rendition of the material, as I do not trust our current administration at all.

If the red rose material was a blueprint on how to abuse children and/or incited people to abuse children, then it's not protected speech.

If the red rose material is a compilation of fantasies, regardless of how sick one might feel, they are a form of protected speech.

Not liking the fact that a type of protected speech exists is not grounds to silence it, or control it, as much as we'd like to, if in fact the red rose material falls under protected speech.

One quote I found interesting the in the freedom of speech primer was this quote from John Stuart Mills:

"If all of mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankid would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

Mind you that free speech does not equal the freedom to DO whatever you like. Real abuse of children, selling content depicting sex between children or with them, sexually exploiting children, etc. is obviously not ok by any mentally healthy persons standards.