Veith isn't into navel-gazing root-cause analysis here; he's inveighing against contradictory (illogical) positions espoused by those who lack the fortitude or the moral candor to defend their whimsical reasoning.
I was not critiquing the article I just believe that "logic" applied" to public policy does not work. It is "logical" for some to see the court ruling as a threat to the 1st amendment but it is just as "logical" to see the decision as a validation of Child pornography. There are examples each side can use to validate their "logic" the court used movies,"lol". The fact is, law for example, is not a logical construct. A law implies force and it can be dangerous in the wrong hands. While that is true is it "logical" to not pass a law on those grounds? No because that is like saying a hammer is good when used by a carpenter but bad when used by an angry husband so therefore hammers cannot be manufactured.