The article tells of one David Ogden. According to Wikipedia, He was a high-ranking official in the United States Department of Justice and the United States Department of Defense during the administration of President Bill Clinton. What his Wikipedia entry does not mention is that he is a supporter of child pornography.
In 1991, he defended a collector of child pornography by claiming that such work was art and that it was protected under the first amendment under the "freedom of speech" clause. (Read the article for a description of the child pornography in question, in case you are wondering just what exactly David Ogden is calling "artistic.")
Our freedoms are not absolute. If the freedom of speech was absolute, it would not be wrong to shout "fire" in a crowded theater or "bomb" on an airplane. If someone calls you and threatens you on a daily basis you can sue them for harassment, and rightly so, but not if we interpret the first amendment as Ogden has done. I like to call myself a Libertarian, and even we Libertarians do not want these freedoms to be rendered absolute.
The reason for pointing this out now is that David Ogden is being considered by Obama for the post of Deputy Attorney General, which makes him influential in deciding how these lawbreakers are dealt with. Does Obama think such an appointment is appropriate? Do you?
As Emily said, you may want to contact your senators, as they will be the ones who approve or disapprove him. Let's help them make the right choice.
1 comment:
i fear this is only the beginning of a grand moral/ethical snowball. American society is slowly but surely rejecting any and all absolute moral standards (and really even the existence of such things). All that's going to be left soon is the de fact standard of "this is wrong because it still makes too many people uncomfortable." And society's comfort level will only increase over time . . .
Post a Comment