That would be correct.

Here's a crazy idea, perhaps the parents should take responsibility for their children and try parenting.
The state is not and should not perform a function of a nanny.

Isn't the 9th circuit court the one that routinely gets its' decisions overturned by higher courts? It's the one staffed by drooling imbicilic marxo-bolshevo-stalinst stanks from San Francisco, right?

@ wats next

Judicial interpretation of the 1st amendment has denied obscenity (e.g. porn) full 1st amendment protection, just as it has denied fighting words and lies (defamation) full protection.

All I need to know is when those same kids can buy and rent some serious porn! I mean, these poor oppressed children are clearly having their 'constitutional' rights being violated by the restrictions on access to porn. Surely there is a better way to police this then to be violating the kids' rights in the 1st and 14th amendments! And why can't they vote for cryin' out loud!?!? Ain't that disenfranchisement?!?

And in other news Democrats are arguing that freedom of speech also means that we should implement the fairness doctrine; where programming content on radio should be regulated by the gov't to ensure balance political points of view (read: get more democratic and/or liberal radio programming on air). Of course this doctrine should ONLY be applied to radio and no other forms of media....ain't (selective) free speech great?