The Sanctity of Smut: How did "virtual child porn" end up with constitutional protection?

Robert Bork

The Supreme Court is not testing the limits of free "speech" so much as it is obliterating them. The latest example is Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, a decision holding that Congress may not prohibit child pornography created by using adults who look like minors or by using computer imaging.

...That until relatively recently pornographers did not even raise the First Amendment in defending their sordid trade indicates how far we have come. It would seem merely common sense to think that graphic depictions of children in sexual acts would likely result in some action by pedophiles. The court finesses that problem with the statement that its "precedents establish . . . that speech within the rights of adults to hear may not be silenced completely in an attempt to shield children from it." Quite right. But why is pornography within the rights of adults to hear and see?

For the complete article go to the Opinion Journal Online website.