So what's the problem?
The federal court ruled that because the law was not restricted to commercial transactions and because a violater did not have to actually possess child pornography (only advertise that he did), "any promoter -- be they braggart, exaggerator, or outright liar -- who claims to have illegal pornography" could end up facing 20 years in jail, even if they didn't actually possess what they promised.
I repeat: So what's the problem with that?
We'll find out soon, because this week the Supreme Court agreed to take the case.
What's wrong exactly with soliciting or advertising child pornography for free? Somehow having a profit motive to pander child pornography was seen by the court as more destructive than having a personal motive. Let me put it this way: For normal people, the problem we want to solve in passing laws banning child pornography is not adults' lust for profits, but their lust for children.
And we are left wondering: What exactly is wrong with our courts? How blind can justice be?
Maggie Gallagher is a nationally syndicated columnist, a leading voice in the new marriage movement and co-author of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially.
Be the first to read Maggie Gallagher's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.