Justice Thomas would like to review the type of porn that will be filtered...Can he have it for the weekend?

The delightful Dahlia Lithwick covers Ted Olson trying to make libraries safe for people with no health problems or bodily parts:

You really have to hand it to U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson. The man can say absolutely anything and still keep a straight face. Here he is in the Supreme Court today, arguing for a law that conditions federal funding to public libraries on their willingness to install wildly ineffective "smut filters," and he actually manages to argue—three times by my count—that these filters will enhance free speech.

[snip...]

A good question from Kennedy: Wouldn't it be a lot easier just to have two separate computers, a filtered one for children and an unrestricted one for adults—you, know, in the section behind the black curtain, with the bound back editions of Hustler and the very sticky floors? Olson replies that Congress could have done this lots of ways, but it chose a rational mechanism (the financial blackmail method) that is constitutionally sufficient. Olson then offers up the incredibly weird argument that this statute actually saves librarians from being inundated with lawsuits from authors suing because their book wasn't stocked. Because if the blocking software is unconstitutional, then "so are the types of decisions librarians have been making all along." This is part of Olson's whole "librarians love this" defense of a statute librarians seem to pretty universally detest—as evidenced by the fact that the named plaintiff in the case is, in fact, the American Library Association.

Supreme Court FunFact: In Lithwick's article the following Justices make comments:

O'Connor
Stevens
Kennedy
Ginsburg
Souter
Rehnquist
Scalia
Breyer

I count eight. Interesting that the one Justice with first-hand (his right hand) knowledge of porn is strangely silent on the issue...if you don't count the low moans and the occasional "Who's your daddy?".