Last week the United States Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3 in Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, maintained that a law banning computer generated pornographic images of children was a violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of speech. In so doing, the Court disappointed a broad range of individuals and groups who fear that the proliferation of such images on the Internet may contribute to an already very serious problem of child pornography in our society.

At the same time, the decision was hailed as a victory by those who believe that restrictions on speech should be either non-existent or minimal. It is far too early to predict what the aftermath of this case will be, but one can be certain that the issue will not go away.

To some degree the timing of the Court’s decision was rather bad. News of the decision had to share the headlines with the tragic stories of child abuse currently rocking the Catholic Church. Child pornography and child abuse have been linked by many serious scholars. Many fear that the availability of child pornography may act as an encouragement, if not incitement, to those individuals who might at some point in their lives engage in the sexual harassment of children. In my opinion, no sane adult could possibly want to see such a thing happen. Indeed, all of us should do all within our powers to prevent the sexual exploitation of children or adults for that matter.

The difficulty in the present case for the majority of the justices would seem to have arisen from the confluence of sophisticated new computer graphics technologies combined with what the majority deemed to be the “overbroad” language of the statute in question. There seems to be no difficulty in prohibiting the production of child pornography which actually uses real children. Such actions in themselves constitute sexual abuse and the damage done to children directly is undeniable.

The problem is that today new computer software makes it possible to generate extraordinarily lifelike images, so lifelike, in fact, they appear to be able to satisfy the sexual needs of those inclined to use them for such purposes. One cannot argue that such computer-generated images themselves require the direct exploitation of individual children, since no real children are directly involved. But that argument does not deal at all with the effect that such images, if easily available, may have on the disturbed individuals who would download them from the Web and view them.

Free speech is a key cornerstone of our democratic society. But our children are the future. The law already recognizes that there are limits even to free speech. Lawyers always cite the classic example that it is not a permissible exercise of one’s free speech rights to shout “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

I believe that we must also find some way to protect our children from sexual abuse and that this must include the strictest regulations regarding child pornography even when real children are not involved in its production. Certainly, we do not want to ban an animated version of “Romeo and Juliet,” as Justice Kennedy feared might happen under the law at issue. But can Congress not find a way to distinguish between Shakespeare and raw sexual depictions of children? If they cannot, then, perhaps, we need new members of Congress. We must hope that Congress and the Supreme Court revisit this issue soon and find a way to protect America’s children.

Mike Hoeflich is a professor in the Kansas University School of Law.