-
sponsorship
A second post from guest blogger Abigail Pilgrim:
I have a hard enough time determining where Bristol and other teens fall on the spectrum of helpless kid to responsible adult. But regardless, it's hard to think that sexually active kids and teens will benefit if David Ogden, Obama's nomination for deputy attorney general, gets approved by the Senate later this month. Ogden's resume reads like a who's who of the porn industry, with a special emphasis on defending child porn. There's no doubt there will be plenty of other issues for Ogden to deal with as deputy attorney general beyond the lucrative sex realm, and I'm sure he's qualified to address them. But I can't get over how creepy some of his past brief statements read. Things like: videos aren't child porn unless "the genitals or pubic area exhibited" were "somewhat visible or discernible through the child's clothing." [David Ogden in Knox v. U.S., (1993)]. It seems like child porn is only going to become a bigger and bigger issue as the lines of consent get blurrier. Tech-savvy kids are doing a good enough job exploiting themselves—as Dahlia just wrote in her story about "sexting." The last thing they need is the government giving a helping hand to all of Ogden's past clients. Anyone else have a reaction to Ogden? I'd especially love to hear some parents weigh in, although being a parent doesn't necessarily make you against child pornography, as Ogden's three kids testify.