Well, there's already a ruling in place to protect children, as you stated above (I haven't looked into it at all, but I suspect that ruling stemmed from a child pornography case).
That being said, unless someone can point out a concrete example where this law will 'protect the children' more than the previous court decisions, as well as outlining reasoning as to why this reduction in the people's rights is 'beneficial', I'm all ears (err, eyes).
Maybe I'm an idealist, but after seeing how the government - at every level - seems to screw even good decisions up, I have a hard time thinking that an impingement upon people's rights is somehow A Good Thing.