The First Amenment explicitly protects "speech." Nevertheless, suceeding generations of judges have loosely interpreted "speech" to cover such non-speaking activities as dirty pictures and nude dancing. Contrast this expansive definition of speech with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's waiving of a 25-year-old man's conviction of sending sexually obscene text messages to a 13-year-old girl. The court ruled late yesterday afternoon--when most of the news media had left the office for the weekend--that because Massachusetts law specifically outlaws handwritten notes to minors, but doesn't explicitly mention text messages, the man's texts, which included his declaration that he'd like to teach the 13-year-old (really an undercover cop) how to perform a sex act, weren't covered by existing anti-perv laws.

The law as written didn't cover what this guy did. Blame the legislature. What exactly is it we pay them to do anyways?

Did the First Amendment not cover radio? It never mentioned radio waves. How about the Internet? The First Amendment never mentioned the Internet? It's curious what judges deem covered by a given statute and what they deem beyond a law.

Right on Flynn, unlike most problems in the commonwealth, this one can't be hung on the legislature. I blame the judges and the liars for forcing the legislature to write 8million page laws because because we can't just say "murder is illegal". We have to say "it is illegal to murder with a knife, gun, rope, car, truck, spoon, bat, fork.............."