The US Constitution, like all legal documents, has its flaws. (I mean Jeez, it was written well over two centuries ago under a tremendously different social climate, global economic condition, and philosophical understanding). Which isn't to say that I don't respect the ideas of liberty. I just don't respect the idea of completely unfettered liberty for everyone. When an activity has a tremedous potential for harm, I believe that activity should be stopped even if no harm is being done at the time. It's just recklessly irresponsible for society to allow someone to extend their freedom of expression to shooting their gun in the air (an activity which in some cultures is somehow celebration) with the argument, "I haven't hit anyone yet."
Did the court say they were opposed to efforts to curb virtual kiddie porn, or did they say they were opposed to the law as written (which, by the way, I am too).
BTW, Rufus, it's good to see you using rhetoric...