Report: Smut-Case Judge Posted Explicit Images

MSNBC ^ | 6/11/08

[steve-b]

A federal judge suspended the obscenity trial of a Los Angeles porn distributor Wednesday following a newspaper report that the judge had sexually explicit material on his own Web site.

Judge Alex Kozinski on Wednesday granted a joint motion to suspend the trial after the prosecution said it needed time to look into the issue of the judge's Web site.

The judge told the jury to return on Monday. The panel spent hours at the Pasadena offices of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals watching videos depicting bestiality and extreme fetishes.

Kozinski is chief justice of the 9th Circuit but is serving as a trial judge in the obscenity case. Kozinski said he thought the material on his Web site couldn't be seen by the public, the Los Angeles Times reported on its Web site. The images included a video of a "half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal," the newspaper reported....

[captjanaway]

Nothing is “private” in cyberspace. Besides, what is the difference between partaking of smut in private and partaking of smut in public. Perverion is perversion no matter what.
He has no business prosecuting smut cases since he obviously sees nothing wrong with it himself.....

[Thrownatbirth]

Kozinski is chief justice of the 9th Circuit

That says it all.

[sirchtruth]

Kozinski is chief justice of the 9th Circuit

Does this surprise anyone at all? The 9th Circuit, perverters of truth, justice, and the American way!

[Tax-chick]

Like, I’m so surprised that the Chief Judge of the 9th Circus wants to screw farm animals. Says everything we need to know about that court’s decisions.

[Dumpster Baby]

The images included a video of a "half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal,"

Heading for the No-Tell Motel.

[mkjessup]

Like, I’m so surprised that the Chief Judge of the 9th Circus wants to screw farm animals. Says everything we need to know about that court’s decisions.

Screwing the Constitution just wasn't enough of a thrill for them I suppose.

[Tax-chick]

*snert*

[Physicist]

If smut-owning judges aren’t qualified to judge First Amendment cases regarding smut ownership, wouldn’t that mean that gun-owning judges aren’t qualified to judge Second Amendment cases regarding gun ownership?

[No Truce With Kings]

The good judge had lots of anti-Catholic images on the server according to reports. Pretty virulent stuff. Nice type of disinterested magistrate to hear cases relating to religion.