Our task is difficult. We are members of Israeli society. Although we are sometimes in an ivory tower, that tower is in the heart of Jerusalem, which is not infrequently struck by ruthless terror. We are aware of the killing and destruction wrought by terror against the state and its citizens. As any other Israelis, we too recognize the need to defend the country and its citizens against the wounds inflicted by terror. We are aware that in the short term, this judgment will not make the state's struggle against those rising up against it easier.

But we are judges. When we sit in judgment, we are subject to judgment. We act according to our best conscience and understanding. Regarding the state's struggle against the terror that rises up against it, we are convinced that at the end of the day, a struggle according to the law will strengthen her power and her spirit.

There is no security without law. Satisfying the provisions of the law is an aspect of national security. I discussed this point in HCJ 5100/94, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. the Government of Israel, at 845:

"We are aware that this decision does make it easier to deal with that reality. This is the destiny of a democracy: she does not see all means as acceptable, and the ways of her enemies are not always open before her. A democracy must sometimes fight with one arm tied behind her back. Even so, a democracy has the upper hand. The rule of law and individual liberties constitute an important aspect of her security stance. At the end of the day, they strengthen her spirit and this strength allows her to overcome her difficulties."

Does it strike anyone else as odd that the Supreme Court seems to be providing more First Amendment protection to pornography than to political speech?

If a right-wing pornographer made a pro-Bush film featuring erotic scenes and put it on the Internet within 60 days of an election, would the Supreme Court call it protected speech?

Our careless and clumsy use of words is pushing us beyond the point where we can have a rational and decent public discourse.

It is worth noting that there is no general data protection law in the US. If Mr Smathers had stolen credit card details then he could have been charged under privacy law, but just taking details of e-mail accounts is evidently fine.

And AOL itself will not be charged for being reckless with the personal details of its customers, because the US government believes that the market should deal with companies who do not take care of personal information.

Over here we have a very different view, and European data protection legislation is among the most restrictive in the world, reflecting our belief that people have a right to control how their personal details are used and that it should be backed up by law and not simply rely on imperfect consumer knowledge.

The first step has to be greater awareness of the issues, so that we are at least asking the right questions.

In years past, American liberals have had to settle for intellectual and moral leadership from the likes of John Dewey, Reinhold Niebuhr and Martin Luther King Jr. But now, a grander beacon has appeared on the mountaintop, and from sea to shining sea, tens of thousands have joined in the adulation.

So it is worth taking a moment to study the metaphysics of Michael Moore. For Moore is not only a filmmaker; he is a man of ideas, and his work is based on an actual worldview.