Porn Found On L.A. Obscenity Case Judge's Website

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."

The Ninth Circus Court

[Ungrounded Lightning (62228)]

Now with animal acts.

Animals.

[Odder (1288958)]

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]:

You don't realize how bad it is in a country like that until you live in a free society like ours. People there live in fear of the secret police -- fear that something they say may get them taken away in the middle of the night. I have seen people hauled off in their pajamas. I've seen what a system of government can do when it is not restrained by law.

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.

Re:The Ninth Circus Court

[dunng808 (448849)]

Although I consider myself liberal, sex with ducks is fowl play.
(Ducking behind a cow painted to look like a woman in a blue silk dress.)

If was up for such charges...

[mpthompson (457482)]

I would certainly want judge Kozinski presiding over my case. Just as if the RIAA was on my case I would want a judge who was familiar with and used bittorrent.

No kidding.

[Alaren (682568)]

You're absolutely right. And what's more...

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.

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!

Hyperlink us FTW!

[tambo (310170)]

Tsk, tsk. Bad submitter. How could you have posted this without the URL? I mean... we need to be able to judge the material for ourselves, right?

- David Stein

"Eh"

[Dogtanian (588974)]

Tsk, tsk. Bad submitter. How could you have posted this without the URL? I mean... we need to be able to judge the material for ourselves, right?

Oh well.... you really want to see it? Here it is! [goatse.cz]

Don't get too titillated now :)

Today's important legal lesson for budding Judges

[w3woody (44457)]

If you are a judge presiding over a case involving the illegal distribution of fetish porn, you should probably take down your own web site illegally distributing fetish porn first.

reaction of the community

[mapkinase (958129)]

I bet the reaction of the community would be much more drastic if
"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

[JustOK (667959)]

Call me back when man bites dog.

The man bit the dog, but it was part of the foreplay.

What better way...

[TobyWong (168498)]

What better way to become a better judge of obscenity than to immerse yourself in relevant material. Makes sense to me in an admittedly warped way.

First time in history

[A beautiful mind (821714)]

...a judge will actually be an expert in the specialty area the case deals with.

Car analogy

[xstonedogx (814876)]

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.

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?

So What

[Jerry Rivers (881171)]

Good luck finding a judge who can truthfully say they have never had any interest in pornography.

What conflict of interest?

[Calydor (739835)]

I fail to see where the conflict of interest is here. So he likes porn. Yeah, he's MALE.

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!

[dpbsmith (263124)]

The bad news: the site is down. "Safari can't open the page 'http://alex.kozinski.com/' because it could not connect to the server 'alex.kozinski.com'"

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?

[rahvin112 (446269)]

I bet 100% of the material on the website is the same material that moves around the "have you seen this" emails forwarded on by every unknowing idiot new to the Internet. I recognize the description of the animal video as the one where the drunk guy is trying to get away from the donkey that is trying to mount him. I also know the woman wearing the cow body paint circulated in a similar email. The vague descriptions on the others also sound as if they are the same type of material that gets forwarded around. I wouldn't be surprised if every adult who has ever used the Internet has seen the material in question, that the judge has some online storage with the material in question isn't surprising to me, and certainly not a reason to dismiss him from the case.

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.

Re:huh?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you ask me, the whole thing is udderly ridiculous.

Thank you. Thank you. I'll be hear all week. Try the veal!

Re:huh?

[A beautiful mind (821714)]

Just be careful not to milk this joke for too long...

Re:huh?

[JK_the_Slacker (1175625)]

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.

Re:Oh boy

[MightyMartian (840721)]

This is going to provide great fodder for all the comedy shows and FOX News. Especially considering the judge was telling jurors that there were about 4 hours of video and he'd be watching it with them since it's part of his job.

Is there something wrong with enjoying your work?

Re:Ignorance is no defense...

[Bryansix (761547)]

Uhm, I think you are forgetting the part about where he did nothing illegal.

Re:Ignorance is no defense...

[Bryansix (761547)]

Assumptions and Conjecture don't mean he did anything wrong. A common exercise in law classes is to take a situation and state all the laws that could have been broken.

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.

Re:psychologically

[digitrev (989335)]

The mind of a censor is best described in the following joke/anecdote.

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."

Re:Can you say

[Original Replica (908688)]

Perhaps the porn was there as a benchmark (no pun intended). Anything freakier than what the judge had is obscene, anything less exotic is simply porn. Even if that wasn't it's intended purpose, it would make an interesting point to argue. After all as a judge, Kozinski is a moral compass, and he is sharing this material with his friends whom we can also assume are pillars of the community, so by them accepting this material,we can conclude that it is not "Offensive to accepted standards of decency or modesty." [thefreedictionary.com] because the standard-bearers of our society have already show to find it acceptable.