Yes, under the Supreme Court’s rulings in cases including Winters v. New York, Miller v. California and Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. Those cases protect all forms of literature and art under the First Amendment, except when a particular item constitutes “obscenity” or “child pornography.”

A work of literature or art is not “obscenity” unless, (1) as a whole, the work appeals to a "prurient" interest in sex — an abnormal, unhealthy interest in sex; (2) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by state law; and (3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. The first two prongs of that Miller v. California test are judged by contemporary community standards, and the third prong is judged by contemporary national standards, under precedent in Pope v. Illinois. “Child pornography” is defined as sexually explicit images of actual minors or based on actual minors. Images of youthful adults, and images of children who have never existed in the real world, are not child pornography under the Free Speech Coalition ruling.

(See more on obscenity and pornography in Adult Entertainment.)