Ruling protects the guilty

I am a big fan of the Constitution. But many today interpret it like they construe the Bible. Instead of looking at the historical significance and context of the law, they vigorously defend rights the Founding Fathers never intended. Perhaps it’s more precarious to uphold the spirit of a law over the letter of the law, but common sense should come into play.

An example is the recent ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo Martinez that upheld an escort company’s freedom of speech by not requiring them to verify the ages of those pictured in their …

I am a big fan of the Constitution. But many today interpret it like they construe the Bible. Instead of looking at the historical significance and context of the law, they vigorously defend rights the Founding Fathers never intended. Perhaps it’s more precarious to uphold the spirit of a law over the letter of the law, but common sense should come into play.

An example is the recent ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo Martinez that upheld an escort company’s freedom of speech by not requiring them to verify the ages of those pictured in their sex-related ads (“Judge blocks law on sex-related ads,” July 29). You can argue until you’re blue in the face why the Constitution would allow freedom of speech in that situation, but in doing so you could be handing over our children to illegal sexual activity.

The Constitution is meant to protect the innocent, not provide a shield for the guilty.

Lindsay Branting

Spokane