[sanchmo]

Let me get this straight:
The Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment to protect the right of grown men to look at dirty drawings (computer-animated graphics are just high-tech drawings/paintings).
However, they did not intend the First Amendment to give a politically active group the privilege of running an ad against a congressional candidate in late October.

[gdani]

However, they did not intend the First Amendment to give a politically active group the privilege of running an ad against a congressional candidate in late October

Uh, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on this yet....

[general_re]

We'll find out, but that would be a rather perverse result, wouldn't it? If nothing else, the perversity of that result might have the effect of upping the odds that CFR will fail ;)

[LouD]

Let me get this straight: The Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment to protect the right of grown men to look at dirty drawings (computer-animated graphics are just high-tech drawings/paintings). However, they did not intend the First Amendment to give a politically active group the privilege of running an ad against a congressional candidate in late October

Bingo. I hope they overturn CFR.

However, if the courts cannot find justification in the law to make illegal something which is as blatantly bad for society as cyber-kiddy-porn, then I am concerned.

It may be time for people to start taking action against organizations that promote this kind of thing. The PETA and EarthFirsters do it on the left, maybe it is time for those of us on the right to start responding in kind.

Child pornography incites child abuse. Period. If someone were to molest my child, after double-tapping him (or her) twice in the ten ring, my next order of business would be to remove from this earth those who materially contributed to the crime.

If the courts will not act, then we should.