I think some would decry the ruling not so much as a threat to the First Amendment, but as an unwarranted, unethical, legislation-by-the-judiciary extension of it. That notwithstanding, Veith's larger point seems in this instance to be, how can First Amendment champions grant free-speech freedom to pornographers (simulators or no) while denying the the identical freedom to citizen groups who want their voices to be heard in the electoral process?
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.
Hmmm, sounds suspiciously like the Second Amendment-abridging arguments of the likes of Chuck Schumer.
Maybe logic will have to yield to ethics or "natural law". . . and then we'll really see some superheated rhetoric.
I'll pick this thread up tomorrow; I need a little sleep before my 5 a.m. wake-up call.
I happen to agree with you simply because my life experience is such that the thought of children, real or imagined, put on display in sexual activities is not even a question for debate. I did not reach that conclusion "logically" it is just a gut level horror of the concept. I, therefore, am not open to a "logical" argument from those that agree with the decision. If forced I could give some reasons why the court decided the way they did but, IMO there is nothing "logical" about it. People of faith can never give a “logical” explanation for their faith because the very concept of faith is illogical but, that faith is as real to those that hold that faith as the air they breath.