The first is that there is no justification for abridging First Amendment rights. The reality is that depictions of criminal behavior have little to do with free speech. Moreover, there is no absolute protection of free speech in the Constitution. The First Amendment does not cover slander, false advertising or perjury, nor does it protect obscenity or child pornography. Restricting criminal material on the Internet should be a matter of common sense in any country that values its children more than it values the rights of consumers addicted to what degrades and dehumanizes.
Civilization is about trade-offs.
With over 80 percent of child molesters admitting they have been regular users of hard-core pornography, it becomes impossible to continue hiding behind the First Amendment and denying the price we are paying. The second most prevalent argument against regulating pornography on the Internet is that it should be the parents' responsibility. This is an odd argument from the same people who have been campaigning for years against parents' rights to choose the schools their children attend. In reality, parents have never felt more powerless to control the cultural influences that shape their children's character and lives. We even heard liberals lament the government intrusion such regulations would entail.