I thought we had heard the last of this young woman but alas, she’s in the news again.

Kevin D. Williamson of National Review.

Belle Knoxious

Miriam Weeks, better known as Belle Knox, even better known as “the Duke porn star,” is sophomoric — but then, she is still a sophomore – and, having stockpiled a supply of that most important American commodity – fame – she has announced her intentions to inflict her sophomoric analysis on the world at large as a political activist, being, as she is, a College Republican of a purportedly libertarian bent. Apparently, the sins of the Right have not been sufficiently punished by Meghan McCain (remember Meghan McCain?), and so the Fates have sent us a half-educated prep-school pornographer in pursuit of a women’s-studies degree, one who describes her political preferences with superfluous deployments of the word “like,” e.g., “My dream list would be like Ron Paul, or Rand Paul would be really cool. That’d be pretty awesome.”

Like, awesome.

That the work of Miss Weeks and her colleagues in carnality is perfectly within the usual libertarian/conservative/constitutionalist circle of individual liberty – we prefer a large circle – is not entirely beside the point, but it is at this point a minor question. Miss Weeks says, “I think that my work and being in the porn industry definitely hits on so many libertarian themes like free speech, and censorship, and, you know, choice and autonomy over our bodies,” but, having been born in 1995, Miss Weeks was in diapers (not the sort worn by those of her colleagues serving some of the more exotic tastes) the last time there was a half-serious attempt at regulating pornography in the United States, in the form of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, a dopey and ham-fisted gesture in the direction of restricting online pornography that was gutted by Reno v. ACLU.

The irony, which Miss Weeks is a few years’ serious reading shy of being able to understand, is that the actual threats to free speech in the United States are not directed at pornography – the protection of which, though in the end desirable, would never have occurred to Madison et al. – but rather are directed at the very thing that our constitutional safeguards were intended to defend: political speech.