April 20, 2002


OBLIGATORY PORN POST: I'm not the first to note that Mike Lynch's Reason column has a great opening paragraph, but it's worth repeating; besides, the column explains the decision well:

"What the Supreme Court has said here is that ‘child pornography’ has to involve children,’" Mark Kernes, a senior editor at Adult Video News, told The New York Times. "And what a shock that is."
My friend Ryan Vooris completely misread the opinion in an item he posted on Tuesday, which you'll have to scroll down to because he doesn't have his archive configured correctly for linking. (Fix it, Ryan!) Also, his blog address changed slightly since the last time I linked (he emailed to tell me a few days ago, but this is the first time I've gotten around to updating this page since), which is the real reason (apart from the schadenfreude of humiliating a friend) I'm even mentioning that he thought the ruling was about real child porn, not the fake kind. A conservative vs. libertarian discussion of the case on Tuesday in The Corner between Jonathan Adler, Mike Poterma, and Jonah Goldberg delved a bit deeper into the questions about virtual kiddie porn a little (scroll upwards to follow the conversation in order).

Posted by John Tabin at April 20, 2002 10:59 PM