(I had the idea that "free speech" might be important to a libertarian philosophy. As the Supreme Court says, this is about "free speech". Ashcroft is regreting "free speech".)
This is in reply to RobVG, too.

”Virtual” child porn law struck down

From the article -

<Ashcroft, however, struck a defiant tone, telling reporters, “The United States Supreme Court made our ability to prosecute those who produce and possess child pornography immeasurely more difficult.”>

Another statement from the article -

“Like obscenity, child pornography is not protected by the Constitution’s free-speech guarantee.”

And again –

“IN A 6 TO 3 RULING, the court, led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, found two provisions of the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act overly broad and unconstitutional.
“The First Amendment requires a more precise restriction,” Kennedy wrote in his opinion, which was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in a separate opinion.
Kennedy said a number of acclaimed movies, filmed without child actors, explored themes that fell within the wide sweep of the law’s prohibitions.”

OK. Child porn is not Constitutionally protected. Free speech is.

I’ll grant there could be a fine line, and it’s one that Ashcroft crossed.

Ashcroft is saying that HE REGRETS THAT THIS LAW, WHICH SERIOUSLY INFRINGES UPON FREE SPEECH, IS NOT OK. He did not say he regrets this law was defective! He said he wanted this law.

He's saying he'd have an easier job if he could just get the problem of Constitutionally guaranteed free speech out of the way.

Ashcroft seems to be saying that the "baby" free speech should be thrown out with the "bath water" child porn.

Heck, he'd have an easier job if he could get habeas corpus out of the way, too.

Arf