In a decision that appears to be rooted in common sense, common decency, and decades of historical precedent, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that made it clear that promoting child pornography is not constitutionally protected speech.

And while some offer slippery-slope arguments about classic literature and artistic movies, the reality is that both the law and the opinions make it clear that attempts to ban non-pornographic works of artistic merit will not fly.

The Supreme Court yesterday upheld an expansive federal law that punishes people who peddle or seek child pornography, saying Congress's remedy for a growing problem on the Internet does not violate free-speech guarantees.

In its 7 to 2 vote, the court also concluded that the law that criminalized "pandering" of real or purported child pornography online or through the mail is not unconstitutionally vague.

The majority dismissed what it called "fanciful hypotheticals" that the law might make movie reviewers or even unsuspecting grandparents subject to its standards.

"We hold that offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.

He said that "child pornography harms and debases the most defenseless of our citizens," and that the law was "carefully crafted" to respond to child pornography "proliferating through the new medium of the Internet."

I don't see where most Americans with a moral compass would have any objection to this ruling, given that it simply criminalizes speech that is directed at engaging in illegal conduct. Change "child pornography" to "heroin" and see if you would find the logic of the ruling offensive.

But what I found striking in the coverage is the way in which some MSM sources were more interested in offering the pro-kiddie porn view before actually delving into the court's ruling.

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.