Although it is hard to stomach the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a provision of a 1996 child pornography law on the grounds they were overly broad and in violation of First Amendment protections, the interpreters of the Constitution reached a just conclusion.

The court ruled Tuesday that the statute could call into question legitimate, educational, scientific and artistic depictions of youthful sex.

It upheld the provision of the law that prohibits the prurient computer alteration of innocent images of children, such as the grafting of a child’s school picture onto a naked body.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the 6-3 majority opinion the law was out of line by banning the visual depiction of and idea that is a “fact of modern society” and has been a theme in art and literature “throughout the ages” - teenagers engaging in sexual activity.

Kennedy cited William Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” in the opinion. In the famous story of “star-crossed lovers,” Juliet is only 13.

Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the court’s most conservative members, wrote a concurring opinion that indicated the court was right to strike down the statutes as being too sweeping. But, he felt the decision left a dangerous window open for the possible future regulation of some kinds of virtual pornography.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, arguing that the law was not aimed to ban the kinds of material the majority spoke of and need not be read that way.

Congress passed the 1996 legislation as part of a bulwark against the then emerging computer-technology that allowed pornographers to simulate child sex without using actual children. The law was meant to stop pornographic computer wizardry that was not available when the court placed child pornography outside First Amendment protection in 1982.

Moviemakers and other artists complained the law could be used to stop the production on scenes, such as those in works mentioned by Kennedy, where youthful sex is pantomimed or filmed using adults disguised as children.

The majority opinion has outraged many conservatives prompting some congressional leaders to accuse the government’s judicial branch of siding with pedophiles over children.

But instead of pointing fingers at the court for doing its duty, Congress should step up to the plate as soon as possible and begin drafting legislation against child pornography that works with the Constitution.

It is safe to say no decent human being would argue child pornography should be legalized and it would be ridiculous to assume the nine justices would either.

Sometimes the most just decisions are not the easiest to make or live with, but that doesn’t make them any less right.

It is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret laws as they pertain to the Constitution, thus ensuring the people’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are protected.

The government is designed to operate “for the people, by the people.” On Tuesday, the Supreme Court did its duty.

It is time for legislators to do their jobs and create a law that is just.

Child pornography cannot and should not be protected by the Constitution. Likewise, laws that ban it cannot and should not infringe upon the rights of legal activities.