Obama Nominates Pro-Porn Advocate to the Justice Department

Back in November, the day of the Presidential elections, I pointed out that the porn industry was rooting against John McCain. Why? One reason was because a McCain administration might appoint someone to the Justice Department who would be more willing to enforce obscenity laws, which in turn might curtail the availability of porn online.

Two months ago, President Obama nominated David W. Ogden for Deputy Attorney General. Pro-family and child-protection agencies are very concerned about this appointment. Why? Because of Ogden’s reputation as a porn-protector.

– – – –

David Ogden and Porn: A Brief Review

David Ogden is a man with a long, impressive resume, but one that is also littered with many examples of protecting the rights of the the adult industry:

• Ogden fought for Playboy in Puerto Rico, helping them keep their adult programming on cable TV.

• Ogden pleaded for Playboy again when they sought to use taxpayer dollars to print Playboy Magazine in Braille against Congress’ wishes (I guess people do buy Playboy for the articles, huh).

• Ogden has claimed in court that there is a constitutional right for pornography to be kept in firehouses (much to the chagrin of female firefighters who don’t want to be subjected to humiliating images in the workplace).

• Ogden sued to allow pornography to be accessed in federally-funded public libraries, challenging the Children’s Internet Protection Act.

• At the beginning of his career, Ogden wrote a memo against opponents of public obscenity, saying that the “offensiveness” of pornography is merely an excuse to bring morality into legislation.

Patrick Trueman, former chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Justice Department, states,

“David Ogden filed a brief in the notorious Knox v. U.S. case in the United States Supreme Court supporting Knox, who was a child pornographer. This created a firestorm in the Clinton administration because Janet Reno wanted the Supreme Court to throw out the conviction, and President Clinton publicly rebuked Janet Reno for her weak position on child pornography. And she changed her position in the case, but David Ogden didn’t.”

– – – –

Oops . . .

A month ago Ogden went back on some of his controversial positions when questioned by senators during his confirmation hearing. He said he regretted the memos he wrote at the beginning of his career, explaining that they were due to “immaturity.” He also said that he “couldn’t remember” whether his previous arguments against regulating pornography regulation were made on behalf of “paying clients,” or if he had made them when working “for the public good.”

Brian Burch, president of Fidelis, says,

“Ogden spent his entire life arguing for far-left extremist positions. And he expects us to believe he has matured and abandoned those views now that he is before the Senate? What we have here is a nominee who knows that his views and Obama’s views on the law are far out of the mainstream in America, so he is adjusting his rhetoric to get the votes he needs.”

Conservatives are saying that this appointment by the President sends a clear message about his own attitudes regarding pornography and obscenity laws. For instance, Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has recently discussed this issue on his radio show.

Patrick Trueman adds, “I believe David Ogden is being groomed for a position on the United States Supreme Court, with this appointment to a high office.”

– – – –

Defending Porn?

British philosopher Roger Scruton has noted that David Ogden’s defense of pornography is based on the idea that explicit pornography is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. He writes,

“The idea that pornography is ‘speech,’ within the meaning of the first amendment, and thereby protected by the Constitution, is so absurd that it is hard for an outsider to see how American judges have been persuaded to accept it again and again. Of course porn is big business, and can afford to keep beating at the doors of the courts. But the real reason for the legalization of pornography in America lies in the culture of the liberal elite and in the strategy of legal activism whereby that elite continues its relentless assault on majority values. Porn has been incorporated into the ‘culture war’ precisely because ordinary Americans see it as a threat to family and religious values. This fact is sufficient to prompt the liberal establishment to add porn to its agenda, as one more thing to be defended in the court against the legislature. Again and again we have seen this process at work, as the values and transgressions of elites are seized upon by the ACLU and similar organizations, rebranded as essential liberties, and defended as constitutional rights, regardless of their subversive effect on society as a whole.”