Should child porn offenders be banned from Victoria Secret ads?

Did you know that 18-20 year olds in New York City couldn't buy spray paint or broad tipped markers until a federal court ruling? This is absurd. They are adults and they couldn't buy art supplies? Yes, I know some of them enage in grafitti but 12 year olds in much of the U.S. are treated as adults when it comes to crime, but a 20 year old college junior (maybe in the national guard for the last two years) had to ask someone older than him to help buy a market for an art class? If not for the court ruling, they would still be banned. Minors are treated as adults and adults are treated as minors and this makes sense?

In a different case, do you also know that if the police arrest you for what should have been only a ticketable offense, than the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it is fine if they then conducted an illegal search. See, if you commit a simple speeding offense but a cop arrests you (wrongly) and finds a single marijuana cigarette in the back of your car, that is fine they state.

People like to decry judicial activism, which seems to mean just complaining when courts actually protect our constitutional rights. In this case, the court didn't protect our 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Justice Scalia defended this ability of the police to engage in illegal arrests, either though incompetence, ignorace or just deceit on the part of the officers. Scalia is of course, one of those justices (raised on a pedestal by Republican presidential candidates as kind of justice they would nominate if elected) who has shown great disdain to our rights and liberty.

Finally, why are those who are convicted of a sexual offense, including child pornography, banned when on probation from not just adult pornography but such things as maybe Maxim magazine. Many probation terms ban anything that is "sexually stimulating" which could mean pretty much anything. Not just a Victoria Secret's ad but a magazine with an attractive woman in a dress. Such terms are absurd and overly broad.

People who desire small children have a sickness, but the idea to treat it is to ban all sexually stimulating material is absurd. If anything, pornography has shown positive effects in reducing social ills. By the way, why can a city government in Richmond, Virginia close off a public street and sidewalks by a city owned housing authority, from the public and say it is now private? That was another Supreme Court case.