The Court did not approve child pornography. What it said was that the law, as it was written, gave too many individuals the power to declare what is child pornography and what is not. This law, as it was written could have been used to ban such works as Shakespeare's "Romeo & Juliet" or even the classic painting "Madonna and Child." A picture of a parent giving his/her newborn child a bath could be prosecuted. If you think there aren't individuals in power who would try you're kidding yourself. I think that child pornography is the worst of the worst of human offenses and (literally) horsewhipping is too good for the perpetrators, but this was a bad law. The court is right, we need a law, but one that defines specifically what is illegal and what is not. This was not that law.