Slashdot Log In
Porn Found On L.A. Obscenity Case Judge's Website
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Jun 11, 2008 04:54 PM
from the so-this-judge-walks-into-a-bar dept.
from the so-this-judge-walks-into-a-bar dept.
Stanislav_J writes "In a bizarre revelation, the judge who is presiding over the Isaacs obscenity trial in Los Angeles was found to have sexually explicit material on a publicly-accessible website. Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, acknowledged that he had posted the materials, but says he believed the site to be for personal storage only, and not accessible to the public (though he does acknowledge sharing some of the material with friends). The files included images of masturbation, public sex, contortionist sex, a transsexual striptease, a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows, and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal. The latter two are especially ironic in that the trial involves the distribution of allegedly obscene sexual fetish videos depicting bestiality, among other things, by Ira Isaacs, an L.A. filmmaker."
Stanislav_J continues:
"The judge has blocked public access to the site (putting up a graphic that reads, 'Ain't nothin' here — y'all best be movin' on, compadre').
Isaacs' defense had welcomed the assignment of Kozinski to the case because of his long record of defending the First Amendment, but the startling news about his website (the revelation of which seems to have been interestingly timed to coincide with today's scheduled opening arguments) now have many folks calling for him to be removed from the case. There is no indication that any of the images on Kozinski's site would be considered obscene or illegal. But certainly, one has to believe that most would consider this at the very least to represent a serious conflict of interest given the nature of the trial."
Isaacs' defense had welcomed the assignment of Kozinski to the case because of his long record of defending the First Amendment, but the startling news about his website (the revelation of which seems to have been interestingly timed to coincide with today's scheduled opening arguments) now have many folks calling for him to be removed from the case. There is no indication that any of the images on Kozinski's site would be considered obscene or illegal. But certainly, one has to believe that most would consider this at the very least to represent a serious conflict of interest given the nature of the trial."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The Ninth Circus Court (Score:5, Funny)
Animals. (Score:5, Insightful)
The ninth circuit is about to lose a defender of free speech because he had the savvy to run a web site but not enough to know how it really works. His collection of "porn" are things that other people sent him, the kind of crap that clogs email systems everywhere. It is impossible to have an email address and not have it sent to you. Someone you know will send it along. His mistake was putting it where it could be seen by the same kinds of fanatics that are pushing the "war on porn" in the first place. Ignore the fact that they routinely get busted like Jimmy Swaggart did. Kozinski thought people would not find it because there was no link to the directory ... ugh! He's exactly the kind of level headed person the courts need to rule fairly on these kinds of cases.
Like the fine article quotes him saying [latimes.com]:
Those were fine sentiments when he was appointed by Ronald Reagan, but it's bad news under a regime that wants to be above the law. There you will find your animals, those who want to live by tooth and claw.
Parent
Re:Animals. (Score:5, Funny)
You don't know enough Republicans.
Parent
Re:Animals. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Animals. (Score:5, Funny)
Can't you post some links or something?
I'd post my email address, but I'm worried that people might fill up my inbox with something other than beastiality porn.
Parent
Re:Animals. (Score:5, Interesting)
Said principal used a Mac, while the school was primarily PC-based. They seized his computer, and returned it over a month later, claiming that they'd found porn (and releasing some supposedly-recovered photos).
I did a full analysis -- wrote my own tools to analyze HFS+, scanned the raw disk for image headers, etc -- and found (1) that the system had files and directories with mtimes during the period in which it was in the district's possession (and thus that they'd failed to follow accepted digital forensics practices), (2) that there were in fact a small number of pornographic images on the hard drive... and (3) that every one of those images was autodownloaded by Eudora Pro, a mail client (written back before spam was a serious issue) which saved every attachment to a specific folder on the disk without prompting. However, not one of these images matched those the school district claimed to have recovered.
The district dropped their case -- and "promoted" the principal to an administrative position he hated, working directly under the man who tried to fire him. Sigh.
Parent
Re:Animals. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Animals. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Animals. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Animals. (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I guess I'm a prude!
I came here hoping someone would post a link to a woman painted like a cow on all fours.
Until I heard about it I had no desire to see this... but now I must.. and I will not rest until I see this bovine sirine. Her tempting moo-call beckons me!
Oh.. and yes, you're a fuckin prude.
Parent
Re:Animals. (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to see the story here at all, and I think the comments in this thread up to this post miss the point.
The point: why should a judge recuse himself from a case due to a supposed conflict of interest when there really is no conflict of interest? Judges are, by definition, asked to compartmentalize their professional opinions and personal opinions, so when the law or a judge's interpretation of the law is in conflict with their personal stance, that is business as usual. We still expect them to rule based on a valid interpretation of the law...regardless of what they think the law ought to be.
A conflict of interest only arises when the judge-in-question has a personal and relevant involvement in the particular proceeding at hand. For example, if the judge regularly does business with a contractor and that contractor comes into his courtroom as a party to a lawsuit, depending on the nature of their relationship, it might be appropriate for the judge to recuse himself. If the judge has financial dealings with anyone involved in a case, then even the appearance of impropriety should be avoided.
However, to say that any judge that's viewed porn should not be able to rule in pornography cases is kind of stupid (even if it's fetish porn). Actually, even if it's child porn, there's no conflict of interest—rather, the commission of a felony is grounds for having that judge removed from the bench, but it wouldn't be a conflict of interest any more than a judge who's an alcoholic ruling on a drunk driving case.
So there's just no conflict of interest here. If we say there is, we have to accept that any judge who's had or had a significant other that's had an abortion cannot rule on abortion cases. And we also have to accept that any judge that's refused to have or be party to an abortion cannot rule on abortion cases. Basically, we're saying that they cannot have taken a position on anything in their personal lives if they're to form a legal interpretation on that thing from the bench. Stupid.
Parent
Re:Animals. (Score:5, Insightful)
So there's just no conflict of interest here. If we say there is, we have to accept that any judge who's had or had a significant other that's had an abortion cannot rule on abortion cases. And we also have to accept that any judge that's refused to have or be party to an abortion cannot rule on abortion cases. Basically, we're saying that they cannot have taken a position on anything in their personal lives if they're to form a legal interpretation on that thing from the bench. Stupid.
Now, if this particular porn happened to come from the defendant in this case, then I could see a possible grounds for viewing it as a conflict of interest. If it is specifically from the material that the defendant is in trouble for distributing, then it probably is a conflict of interest. But from my reading, it's just random mostly-unrelated porn.
Parent
Re:The Ninth Circus Court (Score:5, Funny)
(Ducking behind a cow painted to look like a woman in a blue silk dress.)
Parent
Re:The Ninth Circus Court (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The Ninth Circus Court (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
If was up for such charges... (Score:5, Funny)
No kidding. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're absolutely right. And what's more...
Gotta love the tentative language here--mosts and leasts and all. "One has to believe" no such thing. A serious conflict of interest is when you are deciding cases that directly benefit you financially, or are related to crimes you personally committed. Judging matters related to freedoms that you yourself enjoy is not a conflict of interest. If it were, how could judges who owned guns judge Second Amendment issues? How could a judge who smokes judge tobacco-related issues?
If he's done something illegal or against the judicial code of conduct (don't know--I am not a lawyer yet and haven't researched the issue), then there will be consequences. Otherwise, there may be some shallow irony here, but beyond that it's hardly news. Adult judge in possession of adult-oriented materials!? Next you'll be telling me that some judges drink, some smoke, and some are even... human!
Parent
Re:Foresight, perhaps (Score:4, Insightful)
Where does the article even imply the judge is going to be criminally prosecuted for the content that was on his website? From the description, the content on his site may be seen as embarrassing and in poor taste, but you have to do far more than post nudie pictures your site to be brought up on obscenity charges.
By your logic, a judge who drinks and enjoys alcoholic beverages must recuse himself from a DUI trial because of conflict of interest.
Parent
Hyperlink us FTW! (Score:5, Funny)
- David Stein
"Eh" (Score:5, Funny)
Don't get too titillated now
Parent
Re:"Eh" (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
huh? (Score:4, Funny)
*blink*
*blinkblink*
*blink*
What?
Re:huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you. Thank you. I'll be hear all week. Try the veal!
Parent
Re:huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Just be careful not to milk this joke for too long...
What are you talking about? We'll be milking this joke until the cows come home.
Parent
Re:huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Today's important legal lesson for budding Judges (Score:5, Funny)
reaction of the community (Score:5, Insightful)
"his long record of defending the First Amendment" was not mentioned.
Where is the irony? I do not see it. Porn-loving judge defends "first amendment". I would call it "integrity".
The wolf was appointed to herd the sheep. Call me back when man bites dog.
Re:reaction of the community (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
What better way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What better way... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What better way... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't see the line when you produce the item. You can't see the line when you're charged. You can only see the line you crossed when the jury reads the verdict. And then you go to jail, period.
Amazing, considering "obscenity" as a form of expression doesn't even hurt anyone. It's just a straight-up 1st Amendment violation.
Parent
First time in history (Score:5, Funny)
Car analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Should a judge also recuse himself from presiding over auto theft cases if he should happen like cars?
Does liking porn predispose him to favoring the defendant in an illegal porn case? More importantly, does it do so to a greater degree than being a defender of the First Amendment?
Re:Car analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
So What (Score:5, Insightful)
What conflict of interest? (Score:5, Insightful)
What would be the 'right' judge to preside over this case? A known prude who prays to God at least seven times a week and has publically stated that pornography is a sin?
So he has a life outside the court room. Big fucking deal. There's no money involved in it for him, I'm sure, and he probably doesn't know the defendant either. Where is the conflict of interest?!
Slashdotted, darn it! (Score:5, Informative)
The good news: it's in the Wayback machine. [archive.org]
The bad news: the Wayback machine just shows "Ain't nothin' here. Y'all best be movin' on, compadre" on the main page, from 2004 through the last snapshot in 2005. (The news story saying that this is a recent change is apparently wrong).
Have you seen this? (Score:5, Insightful)
At the bare minimum I would suggest the material in question makes him much more applicable to judge a case involving bestiality because he should be able to recognize the difference between protected speech and images (those emails classify as such) and obscene material.
so....... isn't this like..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course not. Only if the judge's website had illegal porn should he be considered to have a conflict of interest.
Here ya go!! (Score:5, Informative)
Cryptome posted a Yahoo cache of Kozinski's directory [cryptome.org] on its site.
Some of the more interesting file names include:
a.day.without.jews.wmv
BBCCopsUndies.wmv
Colo-rectalSurgeon.wav
isitmanisitwoman.pps
jewsdontcamp.mp3
piss_diver.wmv
Sheep_guy.jpg
show.them.to.me.wmv
testicle.interview.wmv
Looks like Jewish groups may not appreciate his sense of humor as well as the anti-porn crowd. At any rate, I don't see much of anything there that looks from the file names alone to be hardcore. It really does look like a directory of miscellaneous stuff that came in "Look at this!" and "Check THIS out!" e-mails from friends that he just stored on the site for easy access.
Re:Here ya go!! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Oh boy (Score:5, Funny)
Is there something wrong with enjoying your work?
Parent
Re:Ignorance is no defense... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Ignorance is no defense... (Score:5, Insightful)
IE: A guy is walking down a street.
Well really the example doesn't lend itself to any laws being broken but here are the responses you'd get anyways.
1 - Maybe he is walking IN the street in which case he is Jaywalking
2 - He also might be obstructing traffic
3 - If he isn't wearing any clothes then he might be arrested for public indecency
I could go on but I won't.
Parent
Re:Ignorance is no defense... (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably.
Doesn't sound like it. Not that it matters. Not even commercial* porn providers require age verification.
The only major problem with that is, you'd have to actually show (a) the actual minors whose delinquency was contributed to (the "making available" argument doesn't fly) and (b) almost certainly show there was good reason to believe that the judge new he was distributing said content to minors (otherwise most porn mags would be shut down, since obviously if the porn mags weren't printed, you couldn't find minors with them).
In short, you have to consider the judge's position as if he were any other major publisher. Given the repeated attempts to try to "protect" minors on the internet in the past involving porn and how few laws have stood up to Constitutional scrutiny (the only one that comes to mind as accepted is ones involving libraries accpeting federal funds in exchange for having to include anti-porn filters; and assumedly that has to do with it being voluntary to accept funds), it just doesn't seem likely that yet another contorted attempt would work. But, obviously, it's all a matter of taking the judge to court and spending several years until the Supreme Court decides.
*Commercial in this context doesn't just mean "and we want your credit card number". The second one starts receiving money as a result of ads on one's website, one can be called commercial (just like broadcast TV). Assumedly this was a major reason that the age verification laws were discarded, as it would be very unreasonable to have every last website showing a nipple with an ad on it to request a credit card number. And odds are, most people *wouldn't* give a credit card number to the site. The last part, then, severely cripples freedom of speech by abridging the legitimate right of the vast majority to access a site without undue burden. Now, if there were some way to age verify someone in a more trivial fashion on the internet, the courts would probably have a much different interpretation on things.
Parent
Re:psychologically (Score:5, Insightful)
Every day, Joe, a construction worker, would walk to his job singing dirty songs. Mrs. Williams finally got fed up and complained to the police about Joe's singing. They told Joe to cut out the singing. The next day, Mrs. Williams complained again. They asked Joe, and he had stopped singing. So they asked her what the problem was. "He's whistling dirty songs now."
Parent
Re:Can you say (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Can you say (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:No big surprise (Score:5, Informative)
For every case the Supreme Court hears, how many do they allow to stand?-- http://mediamatters.org/items/200511090012 [mediamatters.org]
If 16 of 19 cases that were taken were overturned in 04/05, how many cases did the Supreme Court decline to hear, allowing the 9th Circuit decision to stand? I can't find statistics on the numbers of appeals where the Supreme Court essentially "agreed" with the Circuit court, but I did find this neat doohickey [uscourts.gov] that lets me generate reports on case information for each Circuit, and it tells me that for 2005, the number of "on the merits" decisions (as opposed to decisions about procedural error, etc) was:
1st) 986
2nd) 2121
3rd) 2329
4th) 2590
5th) 3608
6th) 2903
7th) 1480
8th) 2078
9th) 6197
10th) 1524
11th) 3579
DCth
If every one of those 6197 decisions was appealed and the Supreme Court only disagreed 16 times, that's a pretty damn good percentage in my opinion.
Finally, California has money out the wazoo. That money is required in order to appeal cases in the first place, and doubly so to appeal to the Supreme Court. Coupled with the fact that the government is more or less required to let the people try to appeal (something about a right to petition for redress of grievances), you can see those dollars at work in this Circuit.
Parent