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."

Comments

reaction of the community

[mapkinase]

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:Ignorance is no defense...

[Bryansix]

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

So What

[Jerry Rivers]

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

Animals.

[Odder]

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:

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:Animals.

[severoon]

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.

What conflict of interest?

[Calydor]

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?!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:psychologically

[digitrev]

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."

Have you seen this?

[rahvin112]

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.