A Sensible Ruling by a Federal Judge

I'm aware that taking this stance opens me up to claims by all three of my loyal readers that I'm advocating the content protected by the ruling.  That said....

Late last week, a Federal Judge struck down a 1998 law that would require "adult" website operators to jump through hoops to verify that their visitors were of adult age.  Judge Lowell Reed Jr. argued that there are alternative and better ways for concerned parents to protect their children through commercially-available filters.

Furthermore, the benefit that these children may have by avoiding some exposure to pornography as youths would be outweighed by their watered-down rights in adulthood.

Kudos to the Judge.

While no one wants a wild wild west with no restrictions on behavior, I do tire of people who use "for the children" as an argument that can never be questioned.  To disagree with the "for the children" argument automatically brands one as "obviously against the children."

If you're against further limits on gun control, you must want children toting guns in their backpacks using them to settle playground scuffles.

If you're against making Prince perform at the Super Bowl as if he were on Sesame Street, you must be for children having free access to hardcore pornography.

If you don't want de facto censorship of smoking scenes in popular movies, then 
you must be for having cigarettes handed out as part of the school lunch program.

Bleh.