Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the so-this-judge-walks-into-a-bar dept.

The Courts 393

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."

cancel ×

393 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The Ninth Circus Court (5, Funny)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755373)

Now with animal acts.

Animals. (5, Insightful)

Odder (1288958) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755709)

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:Animals. (3, Informative)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755823)

It is impossible to have an email address and not have it sent to you.

I've never, ever, ever had anything like that sent to any of the 9 e-mail addresses I use for home, work, or family communication. Ever.

Re:Animals. (-1, Troll)

D'Sphitz (699604) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755895)

Then you and everyone you know is a prude.

Re:Animals. (2, Insightful)

brucifer (12972) | more than 6 years ago | (#23756057)

Wow, so not wanting to see pictures of women denigrated by being painted like cows or watching some dude "cavort" about with a farm animal makes someone a prude?

Well, I guess I'm a prude!

Re:Animals. (4, Funny)

Odder (1288958) | more than 6 years ago | (#23756029)

You don't know enough Republicans.

Re:Animals. (1)

sjf (3790) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755891)

It is impossible to have an email address and not have it sent to you.

Eh ? have several email addresses and non of them get this stuff sent to them. Sure my gmail account get a metric f*ckton of filtered spam but 90% of it is in Chinese, and the rest are adverts for some strange drug that appears to be called "\/1aqra" While my tastes are far more tame and quotidian than the honorable Judge's I'd know if someone was sending me pictures of nekkid ladies.

Re:The Ninth Circus Court (1)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755741)

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,

Link!?

Re:The Ninth Circus Court (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23755903)

close ...

http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0310/206b5be830bd486c711c.jpeg

Re:The Ninth Circus Court (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23755989)

i'll find it yet ...

http://funnyartpictures.com/03female-body-art/bodyart-images/body-art-nude23s.jpg

Re:The Ninth Circus Court (1)

sjf (3790) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755925)

Isn't this basically the plot to A Clockwork Orange ?

Re:The Ninth Circus Court (1)

clam666 (1178429) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755813)

Typical isn't it? Every time there's a judge or jury member who supports constitutional rights, individual responsibility or choice, or really any sense of freedoms, there almost always comes up some sort of scandal with them, I don't know, practicing or supporting those rights. If this was an RIAA case, it would have been him posting up his personal playlist on a website or keeping his (legal) mp3s on a fileshare he didn't know others could see.

Whenever a judge or prosecutor ends up having KKK affiliation, being a secret member of the communist or nazi party, guilty of corruption or bribery, hiding or manufacturing evidence, or anything of the like, you hear about it years AFTER the cases that they sent people to prison, sent someone for the past 50 years on death row, created case law to screw the American citizen just a little harder, etc.

Maybe it's just me. I must have a guilty conscience with something to hide.

Re:The Ninth Circus Court (5, Funny)

dunng808 (448849) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755949)

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.)

Can you say (0, Redundant)

ichthyoboy (1167379) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755375)

irony?

Re:Can you say (1)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755421)

More of a coincidence, really.

Re:Can you say (1)

Urthwhyte (967114) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755461)

Definitely irony, I'd be willing to bet the article is on Fark right now with the ironic tag and the irony police haven't found issue with it yet.

Re:Can you say (1)

scatters (864681) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755849)

In this case, I think 'irony' is the appropriate term, although possibly not for the reason that the poster of the GP thinks. The irony here is that the behaviour is different from what one would expect from a judge; it is a coincidence that the judge is presiding on an obscentity case.

Re:Can you say (2, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755457)

Live by the ... er ... sword, die by the sword.

Re:Can you say (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23755609)

That would be the pork one.

Re:Can you say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23755829)

That would be the pork one.

More like beef, actually.

Rule 34 for the win.

Not ironic (1)

jnadke (907188) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755605)

irony?

Irony implies you wouldn't expect judges to have midget transexual transpecie gay porn.

Re:Not ironic (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755695)

Irony implies you wouldn't expect judges to have midget transexual transpecie gay porn.

Well I found it surprising.. well, the gay part. All the rest, that's expected, duh.

No irony really (1)

VampireByte (447578) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755803)

Politicians (judges included since they run for office via the same dog and pony show as legislators) are a screwed up bunch of people. They assume everyone else is as screwed up as they are, so they come up with laws to take away our rights. They're like clergy who abuse children and in their guilt scream "Sinners!" from the pulpit at everyone in the pews, assuming they are also doing disgusting things. What else do you expect from people who just want to extract money from the rest of us while creating nothing. It takes a strange mind to pass out a collection plate while calling you a sinner, or tax you while taking away your rights.

Re:Can you say (2, Funny)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755835)

irony?
Did they have torture equipment in the pictures too?

Re:Can you say (1)

tychob_98 (883593) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755857)

Uhm... Judge not, lest ye be judged?

Re:Can you say (5, Interesting)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755977)

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.

Heh (1)

digitrev (989335) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755379)

Well, this will be interesting. I wonder if this will get used against him (i.e. he gets called a hypocrite), or if it'll affect his judgment regarding the case he has right now.

Re:Heh (1)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755477)

Surely he'll have to recuse himself from hearing the case.

Re:Heh (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23755535)

I don't know. Pornography is not illegal. I'm not sure there's any reason to treat the material the judge possessed as any different from a .PDF of Lady Chatterley's Lover or Ulysses.

If the models are all of legal age, then the worst thing you can really accuse him of is copyright infringement.

Re:Heh (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755649)

I think he could have gotten away with it, when I first read it, my immediate assumption was that maybe he was doing some "investigating", as in seeing what exactly the material was, which I would see necissary, aslong as the material was the same material in question.

But, reading further into "storage and distribution"...he failed... unless of course, he was sharing it with other judges, but I think that "isnt in the book" as far as I know, a Judge isnt supposed to take advice from other Judges in a case (?)...

Either way, provided that the people in these pictures and video's are "of age", and "consenting", everyone gets their kicks somehow... big deal.

If was up for such charges... (5, Funny)

mpthompson (457482) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755407)

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. (5, Insightful)

Alaren (682568) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755785)

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! (5, Funny)

tambo (310170) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755417)

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" (5, Funny)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755527)

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 :)

Re:"Eh" (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23756043)

Amazingly, that is not the worst photo of a 9th Circuit Court judge I've seen this week.

Re:Hyperlink us FTW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23755579)

I think the blurb is wrong, the "Ain't nothin' here" text was what could be seen on the index of alex.kozinski.com [google.com] , so as to pretend that there was nothing else. Google found the articles/ directory, but apparently missed the /porn.

RTFS (1)

Stanislav_J (947290) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755617)

The hyperlink to the site (http://alex.kozinski.com/) is in the sentence that indicates that the judge took the stuff down. Nothing to see there. The Wayback Machine shows several versions of the site dating back to 2004, none of the juicy stuff is there.

The Irony... Talk about lack of foresight... (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755423)

HIND sight or HIND site? Which is 20/20? Both!

Wow. (0, Redundant)

Eco-Mono (978899) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755427)

I'm pretty sure he's gonna have to recuse himself now. _

huh? (4, Funny)

cptnapalm (120276) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755431)

"a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows"

*blink*

*blinkblink*

*blink*

What?

Re:huh? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755479)

There's got to be an udder joke in here somewhere.

Re:huh? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23755507)

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? (5, Funny)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755747)

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

Re:huh? (2, Funny)

AlamedaStone (114462) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755867)

Personally, I think the whole story is bull.

Re:huh? (5, Funny)

JK_the_Slacker (1175625) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755915)

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:huh? (1)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755933)

Udder than that I think we might as well talk about it 'till the cows come home.

Re:huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23756023)

These puns really churn my butter.

Re:huh? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23755771)

google image

safesearch off

2nd image result

http://images.google.com/images?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=cow%20girl

Re:huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23755797)

The lack of the standard teen lesbians and ass fetish porn in the mans collection has earned him my respect.

In fact, it reflects exactly the kind of open mindedness I'd appreciate in a judge.

BFD (1)

headhot (137860) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755449)

I dare you to find a public servant's computer with out porn in it. I'm pretty sure computer shipped to the government by contract are to come with porn.

Ignorance is no defense... (0, Offtopic)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755451)

He should be charged with, and convicted of the same charges as any other person who would have had that on a publicly available website.

Otherwise, anyone can use the "I thought it was a personal storage area" defense, and get away with it.

Re:Ignorance is no defense... (5, Insightful)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755561)

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

Re:Ignorance is no defense... (2, Insightful)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755583)

Was the content viewable by minors? Did it have age verification before showing said content?

Well then...

Contributing to the delinquency of minors, and whatever statutes cover providing pornography to minors as well.

Re:Ignorance is no defense... (4, Insightful)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755721)

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:Ignorance is no defense... (2, Interesting)

hcmtnbiker (925661) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755965)

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

Actually I would say if it fails the Miller Test and he was publicly distributing it he should be charged like anyone else. I have not seen the pictures, but I think it feasible to launch an investigation as to whether or not he broke the law with pictures that possibly do not pass a Miller Test. Remember ignorance is not a valid excuse for breaking the law.

Re:Ignorance is no defense... (1)

xant (99438) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755789)

Are you sure about that? The man cavorting sounds awfully close to bestiality, which is, in fact, illegal most places as it constitutes animal abuse.

Re:Ignorance is no defense... (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#23756039)

Well you bring up a good point. But my reply is that SHOULD it be illegal to just distribute something (not for profit) that shows an illegal act? Shoot if that was the case the Police should start scouring YouTube for every Police Camera video showing a crime that surfaces on there and arresting the poster.

Re:Ignorance is no defense... (1)

SiegeTank (582725) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755573)

Relax, I'm sure it was all there for research. It's all part of his job.

Re:Ignorance is no defense... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23755723)

Now here is an idea - whatever "sentence" this judge hands out, applies to himself too. I wonder if suddenly he would "go easy" on the accused. Of course the decision should be reviewed by his peers... oh, they might too have porn on their 'personal' websites.

Re:Ignorance is no defense... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23755773)

He should be charged with, and convicted of the same charges as any other person who would have had that on a publicly available website.
Yeah!!! Lets charge him with his crimes, I've prepared a list of illegal things about those images.

1. ???

Oh that's right, they're not illegal at all.

Today's important legal lesson for budding Judges (5, Funny)

w3woody (44457) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755459)

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.

Re:Today's important legal lesson for budding Judg (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23755667)

Nothing from the site was illegal however. (aside from possible copyright infringement if he didn't have the rights to distribute the photos, which I don't think was your idea of illegal)

Furries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23755465)

Damn furries. Always ruining everything....

:)

reaction of the community (5, Insightful)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755475)

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 (5, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755749)

Call me back when man bites dog.
The man bit the dog, but it was part of the foreplay.

Oh boy (2, Funny)

joggle (594025) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755481)

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.

Re:Oh boy (5, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755511)

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:Oh boy (1, Funny)

digitrev (989335) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755545)

...comedy shows and FOX News
Someone please mod parent -1, Redundant.

Re:Oh boy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23756013)

Why? Where is there an earlier post that is similar?

Re:Oh boy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23755699)

there were about 4 hours of video and he'd be watching it with them since it's part of his job.


I just realized... I'm in the wrong line of work! Why didn't my career councilor every tell me that I could actually get PAID for watching porn?!?

You know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23755513)

It's stuff like this that probably makes a writer's gig at the Daily Show pretty easy from time to time.

Seriously, what would you even add as an embellishment to make this more hilarious?

What better way... (4, Insightful)

TobyWong (168498) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755521)

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.

Re:What better way... (1)

digitrev (989335) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755597)

Actually, the best way to judge obscenity is to be a fairly normal person. After all, part of the Miller test for obscenity is

Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
Of course, seeing as how he was selling it on the intrnet, who's to say what the community is, what its standards are?

Re:What better way... (3, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755855)

The Miller "test" is just a codification of hypocrisy. There is no such thing as an average person when it comes to taste.

Re:What better way... (1)

digitrev (989335) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755995)

Codification of hypocrisy or not, it's still the current legal test of what is and isn't hypocrisy in the States.

Good Lawyering That... (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755555)

I would have to say that the defendant's attorney definitely got his client into the right court. Sadly for said defendant, the judge will have to recuse himself now. Unless,the judge rules that it is not pornography, and then everybody goes home happy; except the prosecutors, of course.

PLEASE (1)

nawcom (941663) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755577)

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE I hope someone made a private backup of his stash. We can then bring the site back up on a server in Armenia.

case dismissed, judge disbarred (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23755603)

case dismissed, judge disbarred.

or that's what should happen.

All I can say is (1)

dbatkins (958906) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755645)

good one universe, good one...

First time in history (5, Funny)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755661)

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

Car analogy (4, Insightful)

xstonedogx (814876) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755677)

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?

psychologically (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755683)

censorship is a special wonderful combination of hypocrisy and a lack fo self awareness and a lack of awareness of true human nature

Re:psychologically (5, Insightful)

digitrev (989335) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755827)

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."

So What (5, Insightful)

Jerry Rivers (881171) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755687)

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

Re:So What (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755865)

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

Evidence (1, Offtopic)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755703)

Pics or it didn't happen.

(Had to, sorry.)

trial will see hours of hard-core fetish... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23755735)

he should have asked reiser how to permanently delete files.

i know, i know: its in bad taste.

What conflict of interest? (5, Insightful)

Calydor (739835) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755745)

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?!

Isaacs should have checked... (1)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755763)

Isaacs should have checked his billing system... He could have been found "Not-Guilty" by now. Well at least "case dismissed" due to a threat of certain info getting released to the press and his Wife :D:D

No big surprise (2, Insightful)

DrHackenbush (1273982) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755765)

A couple of lawyer buddies of mine tell me that they are coached in law school to take anything from the 9th Circuit Court with many grains of salt. That may be the most overturned legal entity on the planet. So a foolish pervert is the chief judge. Huh. What do you know?

Re:No big surprise (1)

statemachine (840641) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755905)

The 9th circuit also has a huge caseload compared to many other circuits. Is the number of overturned rulings (overturned by the US Supreme Court) per case submitted higher than anywhere else? Or is this just a statistic taken out of context?

TPIWWP (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755781)

Carry on (and mirror please).

Get off on a technicality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23755795)

Here's to betting the defendant gets off as a result of this...

watching (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23755807)

"I will be there watching with you. This is part of the job we're doing.", i bet he will ;)

Hmmm... (1)

wtansill (576643) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755817)

Something comes to mind about stones and glass houses... Now what was that again...

Slashdotted, darn it! (4, Informative)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755831)

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).

Quote of the week! (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755845)

Oh, fuck yeah!

Ain't nothin' here -- y'all best be movin' on, compadre.
DUDE.

Have you seen this? (5, Insightful)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755875)

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.

In California... (1)

aitala (111068) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755929)

you don't judge porn, porn Judges, er, cows?

E

And now the punchline... (3, Funny)

ross.w (87751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755971)

...the Aristocrats
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>