Judge: Porn Not That Bad For Kids

Old fart Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., threw out the 1998 Child Online Protection Act yesterday that makes it a crime for commercial Web site operators to let children access porn, saying:

"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection."

Perhaps not. Perhaps it's not too much to ask scumbags who are profiting off porn's chipping away at American decency to at least try to protect the next generation from their filth ... at least for a few years. Heck, even tobacco companies do that.

But Reed, a Regan appointee who graduated from law school waaaaay back in '52 and has therefore won himself an official "dirty old man" designation, thought it too chilling to ask smut peddlers to require a credit card number or other proof of age. Again, you need proof of age to buy a pack of cigarettes -- why not for porn?

Reed may have been duped by the porn industry, that loves playing in the grey area. Maybe kids couldn't access health sites ... who's to say what's porn or not ... but here's a hint: If naked people are doing it in graphic detail, it's porn, and it's better for kids not to see it.

The judge should know that access to porn at an early age is not without its risks, so on his scale of kids accessing porn on one side and First Amendment freedoms being micro-chipped away on the other by limiting access to graphic sex sites by 12 year-olds, it's an easy call. Protect kids from too much early focus on sex, which can lead to early sexual activity, STDs, adults who would exploit them, and all the other ills porn brings with it.