Wow! Sanity from the court, what a shock! Can we all agree that this is a good thing?

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a law aimed at preventing child pornography, ruling a provision dealing with “pandering” illicit material does not violate constitutional protections on free speech.
The 7-2 ruling rejected suggestions the law is overly broad, and will stifle a range of expressive or artistic material that is not obscene.
The case involves Michael Williams, convicted in a Florida federal court for promoting child pornography on the Internet.
A 2003 federal law made it a crime not only to produce and possess child porn, but also to “pander” material, conveying the belief that material contains minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The pandering provision covers anyone who “advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits” this material.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Congress’ latest attempt to deal with this “threat” was legally “successful.”
[…]
Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

Do you think that 41 kicks himself for every appointing this guy? He is even worse than Reagan’s mistake.