Yes, there should be limits to speech

Yes, there should be limits to speech…The absurdity of the 2002 ruling by the Supreme Court in regard to Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1996 should give pause to all Americans. Realizing that there is evolution in media law due to technologies, the courts have gone from the restrictive Hicklin Rule/Comstock Act to granting federal protection to the generators of child porn images. The most specious statement in the opinion: “The argument that eliminating the market for pornography produced using real children necessitates a prohibition on virtual images as well is somewhat implausible because few pornographers would risk prosecution for abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice. Moreover, even if the market deterrence theory were persuasive, the argument cannot justify the CPPA because, here, there is no underlying crime at all.” Is this the Supreme Courts' conjecture or just an apparent logical risk- assessment of a would be pedophile? In fact, this opinion not only a defense of the odious imagery, but those whom produce as well…wow; we have gone from restricting something that would offend the sensibilities of a child to federal protection of smut merchants that produce criminal images.