Unfortunately, you're (partially) mistaken. Upon reading the court decision, it appears that the pornography found was the underage variety. You are also correct that it is "obscenity" that is outlawed and not "pornography."
However, most pornography meets the definition of "obscenity," and the federal government and many states do still outlaw it. As best I know, the Supreme Court has not yet specifically stated that we have a constitutional right to look at obscene materials in our own homes. The main reason why the SC has not yet made such a ruling is that virtually no one is prosecuted for having 18+ obscene materials.
That said, this guy's bags were inspected by a TSA agent and the TSA agent alleges that she was looking for explosives concealed within the pages (think: hollowed-out book). Assuming this to be true, the guy got what he deserved. Now, if the TSA agent had no reason to believe it possible that there was a bomb between the pages, his rights were violated, but good luck proving that.
Originally Posted by
PTravel
Evidently, the material in question was child pornography. "Pornography" is most certainly not illegal under federal laws, and any state laws that use any definition other than the Miller Test for obscenity are in violation of the Constitution.
The reason why is that, a long time ago, the Supreme Court set out the test for obscenity, not pornography. Pornography is not only not illegal, there is no legal definition for pornography (except in the context of kiddie porn).
--Jon
More info on that, because I hate describing the law without citing authorities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsceni..._obscenity_law
(...not that Wikipedia is an authority, but they do cite several statutes and cases)
--Jon