Coddling Pedophiles

by Ben Shapiro - August 8th, 2007 - Townhall.com

For the last half-century, the Supreme Court has consistently broadened protections for pornographers and child molesters. In 2002, the Supreme Court construed the First Amendment to protect virtual child pornography (Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, 2002) -- child pornography produced utilizing computer-generated minors. Striking down the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, the Supreme Court gushed about the possible artistic, literary and social value of child pornography. "[T]eenage sexual activity and the sexual abuse of children have inspired countless literary works," blathered Justice Anthony Kennedy, author of the majority opinion, citing "Romeo and Juliet," "Traffic" and "American Beauty."

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, said the Court, was over-broad and unconstitutional. But the same could be said of the Supreme Court's obscenity-protecting interpretation of the First Amendment.

The claim that because of literary merit in a story about two teenagers in love (Romeo and Juliet), pronography cannot be regulated by society as a whole, is absolutely the most bizarre claim that comes from the criminal coddling unelected tyrants of our corrupt court system. This literary work of several thousand words which indirectly suggests that first love can be overwhelming is equated with pictures of young children having sex with adults.

It is said by the judges that this protection is based on "constitutional rights". That is a lie. It is based on "criminal rights". To judges who are abandoning the "rule of law" for the "rule of judges", such distinctions are carefully ignored. Rights granted to criminals to empower the judiciary are always called "constitutional rights". The defense of pornography is all about court power and has nothing to do with our constitution.