That's the way the news headlines should read, in my opinion. According to the Supreme Court, the law meant to punish pornographers who market their "wares" to minors is a possible breach of the first amendment -- the right to free speech. As a result, they’ve thrown it out.

So either the judges are drugged out of their minds, certifiably insane, don't have impressionable children of their own to worry about, or who knows what.

The law would have required adults to use access codes or other methods of registration before they could see the questionable material online. It would also have levied some hefty fines at pornographers who continued to market to kids.

Opponents claim that it would have been too restricting on free speech. Hey, I'm all for free speech, especially in a time when it seems like so many of our rights are being subtly constrained. But a law that would have enacted security measures to protect children from porn sites? How exactly is that wrong? Hell, it's bad enough that any child with an email account could be greeted at any time with penis enlargement SPAM and a slew of other nasty sounding emails.

Sometimes I just don't understand our society. If there's someone out there who can explain it to me -- feel free.