> Should have went with a first amendment challenge in federal court The nature of the case in-question is clearly one of obscenity (the subject was sexually h

> Should have went with a first amendment challenge in federal court The nature of the case in-question is clearly one of obscenity (the subject was sexually harassing someone else, which is definitely not protected by first-amendment rights). As a WA resident myself, I'm disappointed in the judgement (though that depends on what the State Supreme Court's role is - it's unclear to me if they were deciding what the law said or if they were deciding what was just in the circumstances - kinda like how the US Supreme Court will decide if a given law is constitutional or not, regardless of how just or actually necessary that law is for a well-functioning society - this wouldn't be as big a problem if the US would end its sacrosanct, holy-text treatment of the Constitution - I used to admire and revel in the simplicity of a short written, principled, constitution - but now that I'm older, wiser and far more cynical I feel the other countries' approach of "the law IS the constitution" makes it easier to be responsive and reactive without necessarily betraying any long-standing principles.