Author Topic: 9th Circuit Chief Judge posted sexually explicit subject matter on his website  (Read 1675 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DixieBelle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12143
  • Reputation: +512/-49
  • Still looking for my pony.....
One of the highest-ranking federal judges in the United States, who is currently presiding over an obscenity trial in Los Angeles, has maintained a publicly accessible website featuring sexually explicit photos and videos.

Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, acknowledged in an interview with The Times that he had posted the materials, which included 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. Some of the material was inappropriate, he conceded, although he defended other sexually explicit content as "funny."

Kozinski, 57, said that he thought the site was for his private storage and that he was not aware the images could be seen by the public, although he also said he had shared some material on the site with friends. After the interview Tuesday evening, he blocked public access to the site.

Asked whether the contents of his site should force him to step aside from the pending obscenity trial, Kozinski declined to comment. Opening statements in the trial are scheduled for this morning. In the case, Ira Isaacs, a filmmaker based in Los Angeles, is accused of distributing criminally obscene sexual-fetish videos depicting bestiality and defecation.

Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor who specializes in legal ethics, told The Times that Kozinski should recuse himself from the Isaacs case because "the public can reasonably question his objectivity" concerning the issues at hand.

Gillers, who has known Kozinski for years and called him "a treasure of the federal judiciary," said he took the judge at his word that he did not know the site was publicly available. But he said Kozinski was "seriously negligent" in allowing it to be discovered.

"The phrase 'sober as a judge' resonates with the American public," Gillers said. "We don't want them to reveal their private selves publicly. This is going to upset a lot of people."

Gillers said the disclosure would be humiliating for Kozinski and would "harm his reputation in many quarters," but that the controversy should die there.

He added, however, that if the public concludes the website was intended for the sharing of pornographic material, "that's a transgression of another order."

"It would be very hard for him to come back from that," he said.

Kozinski said he would delete some material from his site, including the photo depicting women as cows, which he said was "degrading . . . and just gross." He also said he planned to get rid of a graphic step-by-step pictorial in which a woman is seen shaving her pubic hair.

Kozinski said he must have accidentally uploaded those images to his server while intending to upload something else. "I would not keep those files intentionally," he said. The judge pointed out that he never used appeals court computers to maintain the site.

The sexually explicit material on Kozinski's site earlier this week was extensive, including images of masturbation, public sex and contortionist sex. There was a slide show striptease featuring a transsexual, and a folder that contained a series of photos of women's crotches as seen through snug fitting clothing or underwear. There were also themes of defecation and urination, though they are not presented in a sexual context.

Kozinski, who was named chief judge of the 9th Circuit last year, is considered a judicial conservative on most issues. He was appointed to the federal bench by then-President Ronald Reagan in 1985. He has a national reputation for a brilliant legal mind and has developed a reputation as a champion of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression. Several year ago, for example, after learning that appeals court administrators had placed filters on computers that denied access to pornography and other materials, Kozinski led a successful effort to have the filters removed.

The judge said it was strictly by chance that he wound up presiding over the Issacs trial in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. Appeals court judges occasionally hear criminal cases when they have free time on their calendars and the Isaacs case was one of two he was given, the judge said.

Kozinski said he didn't think any of the material he posted on his website would qualify as obscene.

"Is it prurient? I don't know what to tell you," he said. "I think it's odd and interesting. It's part of life."

Before the site was taken down, visitors to http://alex.kozinski.com were greeted with the message: "Ain't nothin' here. Y'all best be movin' on, compadre."

Only those who knew to type in the name of a subdirectory could see the content on the site, which also included some of Kozinski's essays and legal writings as well as music files and personal photos.

The judge said he began saving the sexually explicit materials and other items of interest years ago.

"People send me stuff like this all the time," he said.

He keeps the things he finds interesting or funny with the thought that he might later pass them on to friends, he said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-kozinski12-2008jun12,0,6220192.story

How could he not know his site was viewable by the public? They don't say he was hacked, just negligent.  The article doesn't clarify, but I wonder where he obtained the materials? If they are from things he comes across in court, that could be a huge problem. It sounds like he just had a collection of smut from random places like millions of other people. I bet the defense attorney in this current trial is dancing with glee.  :thatsright:
I can see November 2 from my house!!!

Spread my work ethic, not my wealth.

Forget change, bring back common sense.
-------------------------------------------------

No, my friends, there’s only one really progressive idea. And that is the idea of legally limiting the power of the government. That one genuinely liberal, genuinely progressive idea — the Why in 1776, the How in 1787 — is what needs to be conserved. We need to conserve that fundamentally liberal idea. That is why we are conservatives. --Bill Whittle

Offline bijou

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8937
  • Reputation: +336/-26
I don't know if the defence will be that happy. I was reading a report on this trial and it seemed that the judge was going to be pretty sympathetic to them.



Offline DixieBelle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12143
  • Reputation: +512/-49
  • Still looking for my pony.....
Hmm...interesting case to say the least!
I can see November 2 from my house!!!

Spread my work ethic, not my wealth.

Forget change, bring back common sense.
-------------------------------------------------

No, my friends, there’s only one really progressive idea. And that is the idea of legally limiting the power of the government. That one genuinely liberal, genuinely progressive idea — the Why in 1776, the How in 1787 — is what needs to be conserved. We need to conserve that fundamentally liberal idea. That is why we are conservatives. --Bill Whittle

Offline bijou

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8937
  • Reputation: +336/-26
Hmm...interesting case to say the least!
I am quite glad I won't be on the jury. I don't think I could sit through that much animal pr0n. 



Offline Randy

  • Resident Grouch with a
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4244
  • Reputation: +202/-39
  • Odd
I don't know if the defence will be that happy. I was reading a report on this trial and it seemed that the judge was going to be pretty sympathetic to them.

Of course he is. It's the 9th Circus Court. Home to the stupidest, most moonbatty decisions in the country.

Offline terry

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
  • Reputation: +132/-6
He's guilty of poor judgment at the very least.   How can people be so stupid?

Offline Chris_

  • Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46845
  • Reputation: +2028/-266
Hmm...interesting case to say the least!
I am quite glad I won't be on the jury. I don't think I could sit through that much animal pr0n. 

You get used to it.







Or... at least... um.... that is what I have heard...
If you want to worship an orange pile of garbage with a reckless disregard for everything, get on down to Arbys & try our loaded curly fries.

Offline Willow

  • Limousine
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Reputation: +91/-9
I don't know if the defence will be that happy. I was reading a report on this trial and it seemed that the judge was going to be pretty sympathetic to them.

Of course he is. It's the 9th Circus Court. Home to the stupidest, most moonbatty decisions in the country.


don't quote me on this but it seems as if I remember reading that about 90% of the ninth nutty court's decisions are overturned!  :tongue:

Offline Ptarmigan

  • Bunny Slayer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23676
  • Reputation: +932/-225
  • God Hates Bunnies
Perversion at its worst.
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
-Napoleon Bonaparte

Allow enemies their space to hate; they will destroy themselves in the process.
-Lisa Du

Offline Full-Auto

  • Topic Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 663
  • Reputation: +55/-15
A 9th Circuit judge is discovered to be a pervert... shocking.  Who would have thunk it?   :rotf:


Offline tuolumnejim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Reputation: +88/-4
9th Circuit chief judge caught with porn on his computer
« Reply #10 on: June 12, 2008, 07:53:41 PM »
It couldn't happen to a nicer libtard.  :rotf: :lmao:

Link

Quote
LOS ANGELES —  The criminal prosecution of a hard-core pornographer turned into a personal trial for the presiding judge, who called for an investigation Thursday into his own conduct over lewd photos and videos stored on his family's publicly accessible Web site.

Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, asked an ethics panel of the court to initiate proceedings after the disclosure about his trove of sexually explicit material.

"I will cooperate fully in any investigation," Kozinski said in a statement.

Kozinski, 57, left court Wednesday without comment after suspending the trial of Ira Isaacs, who is charged with obscenity for selling movies depicting bestiality and fetishes involving feces and urination. The delay until Monday will give lawyers time to consider whether to ask for Kozinski to step down from the case.

The Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday that Kozinski had posted sexual material on his personal Web site and then blocked access after being interviewed about it Tuesday evening. He told the Times he was responsible for posting at least some of the images and videos.

The computerized cache included a picture of two nude women on all fours painted to look like Holstein dairy cows, images of masturbation, a video of a man being pursued by a sexually aroused donkey and a slide show featuring a striptease with a transsexual.

"If you found this kind of thing in your kid's bedroom you would wash your kid's mouth out with soap. We expect more from a judge," said Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at Loyola University Law School. "Character counts for judges because they have so much power and affect so many people's lives."

Kozinski who has been mentioned as a possible Supreme Court candidate, is known for his intellectual rigor, writing flourishes and an outlandish _ some say boorish _ personality.

But the graphic material has opened questions about his fitness to serve on the high-profile obscenity case as well as the standard for what types of images are taboo, particularly on a judge's personal Web site.

Although he requested an investigation, it's unclear what, if any, discipline Kozinski could face. Circuit judges are appointed for life and can be fired only by Congress, though fellow jurists can censure them.

Kozinski did not immediately respond to a request for an interview Thursday.

The judge, a married father of three sons, claims to build his own computers but told the Los Angeles Times he didn't know the Web site was accessible to Internet surfers. One of his sons, Yale Kozinski, later told The New York Times that the site is registered to him and he maintains it, but neither father nor son made clear who posted the images in question.

Federal rules say judges should "act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." But does material on a judge's personal Web site cross that line?

"Even if it is private, the problem for him is the cat is out of the bag," said Tom Fitton, president of conservative Judicial Watch. "You're going to have questions about his impartiality."

But Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at University of California, Irvine, said the material would not permanently harm Kozinski's reputation.

"It's much ado about very little," Chemerinsky said. "There is no indication that this material is even close to obscenity."

Cyrus Sanai, a Beverly Hills lawyer who has had a long-running dispute with the 9th Circuit, took credit for bringing the graphic material to light.

Sanai said he discovered the sexual content in December while monitoring the judge's Web site as part of his legal rift with the court. After downloading the files, Sanai said he began contacting reporters at various publications in January to bring attention to what he called widespread ethical problems on the 9th Circuit.

He provided a copy of the files to The Associated Press on Wednesday, which appeared to mirror the Times' descriptions of videos and pictures on the Web site.

___
A people... who are possessed of the spirit of commerce, who see and who will pursue their advantages may achieve almost anything.

GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to Benjamin Harrison

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."
Thomas Jefferson

Offline DixieBelle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12143
  • Reputation: +512/-49
  • Still looking for my pony.....
MERGED

Oh and someone sent me a link to a site that uploaded the images. I didn't have to nerve to follow the really bad NSFW links posted there. I won't link here but you can go to www.patterico.com (just look around) to see the tame ones posted and links to the really awful stuff.
I can see November 2 from my house!!!

Spread my work ethic, not my wealth.

Forget change, bring back common sense.
-------------------------------------------------

No, my friends, there’s only one really progressive idea. And that is the idea of legally limiting the power of the government. That one genuinely liberal, genuinely progressive idea — the Why in 1776, the How in 1787 — is what needs to be conserved. We need to conserve that fundamentally liberal idea. That is why we are conservatives. --Bill Whittle

Offline tuolumnejim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Reputation: +88/-4
I don't know if the defence will be that happy. I was reading a report on this trial and it seemed that the judge was going to be pretty sympathetic to them.

Of course he is. It's the 9th Circus Court. Home to the stupidest, most moonbatty decisions in the country.


don't quote me on this but it seems as if I remember reading that about 90% of the ninth nutty court's decisions are overturned!  :tongue:
So very true, it's like they don't even try.  :-)
A people... who are possessed of the spirit of commerce, who see and who will pursue their advantages may achieve almost anything.

GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to Benjamin Harrison

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."
Thomas Jefferson

Offline DixieBelle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12143
  • Reputation: +512/-49
  • Still looking for my pony.....
Another perspective -

Quote
Here are the facts as I've been able to tell: For at least a month, a disgruntled litigant, angry at Judge Kozinski (and the Ninth Circuit) has been talking to the media to try to smear Kozinski. Kozinski had sent a link to a file (unrelated to the stuff being reported about) that was stored on a file server maintained by Kozinski's son, Yale. From that link (and a mistake in how the server was configured), it was possible to determine the directory structure for the server. From that directory structure, it was possible to see likely interesting places to peer. The disgruntled sort did that, and shopped some of what he found to the news sources that are now spreading it.

Cyberspace is weird and obscure to many people. So let's translate all this a bit: Imagine the Kozinski's have a den in their house. In the den is a bunch of stuff deposited by anyone in the family -- pictures, books, videos, whatever. And imagine the den has a window, with a lock. But imagine finally the lock is badly installed, so anyone with 30 seconds of jiggling could open the window, climb into the den, and see what the judge keeps in his house. Now imagine finally some disgruntled litigant jiggers the lock, climbs into the window, and starts going through the family's stuff. He finds some stuff that he knows the local puritans won't like. He takes it, and then starts shopping it around to newspapers and the like: "Hey look," he says, "look at the sort of stuff the judge keeps in his house."

I take it anyone would agree that it would outrageous for someone to publish the stuff this disgruntled sort produced. Obviously, within limits: if there were illegal material (child porn, for example), we'd likely ignore the trespass and focus on the crime. But if it is not illegal material, we'd all, I take it, say that the outrage is the trespass, and the idea that anyone would be burdened to defend whatever someone found in one's house.

Because this is in many ways the essence of privacy. Not the right to commit a crime (though sometimes it has that effect). But the right not to have to defend yourself about stuff you keep private. If the trespasser found a Playboy on the table in the den, the proper response is not to publish an article reporting this fact, and then shift the burden to the home owner to defend the presence of the Playboy (a legal publication, harmless in the eyes of some, scandalous in the eyes of others). The proper response is to give the private party the benefit of privacy: which is, here at least, the right not to have to explain.

This analogy, I submit, fits perfectly the alleged scandal around Kozinski. His son set up a server to make it easy for friends and family to share stuff -- family pictures, documents he wanted to share, videos, etc. Nothing alleged to have been on this server violates any law. (There's some ridiculous claim about "bestiality." But the video is not bestiality. It lives today on YouTube -- a funny (to some) short of a man defecating in a field, and then being chased by a donkey. If there was malicious intent in this video, it was the donkey's. And in any case, nothing sexual is shown in that video at all.) No one can know who uploaded what, or for whom. The site was not "on the web" in the sense of a site open and inviting anyone to come in. It had a robots.txt file to indicate its contents were not to be indexed. That someone got in is testimony to the fact that security -- everywhere -- is imperfect. But this was a private file server, like a private room, hacked by a litigant with a vendetta. Decent people -- and publications -- should say shame on the person violating the privacy here, and not feed the violation by forcing a judge to defend his humor to a nosy world.

When it comes to government invasions of our privacy, we are (and rightly) a privacy obsessed people. We need to extend some of that obsession to the increasingly common violations by private people against other private people. There is nothing for Chief Judge Kozinski to defend because he has violated no law, and we live in a free society (or so he thought when he immigrated from Romania). A free society should feed the right to be left alone, including the right not to have to defend publicly private choices and taste, by learning not to feed the privacy trolls.


http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html

This judge is a Reagan appointee and a known conservative. I wonder if the ACLU is going to step in if the above facts are accurate? This is getting intriguing.
I can see November 2 from my house!!!

Spread my work ethic, not my wealth.

Forget change, bring back common sense.
-------------------------------------------------

No, my friends, there’s only one really progressive idea. And that is the idea of legally limiting the power of the government. That one genuinely liberal, genuinely progressive idea — the Why in 1776, the How in 1787 — is what needs to be conserved. We need to conserve that fundamentally liberal idea. That is why we are conservatives. --Bill Whittle