Posted on 06/12/2008 5:07:11 PM PDT by mojito
In a saga with all the elements of a Hollywood thriller, an appeals court judge who is one of America's leading legal intellectuals stands accused of maintaining a public stash of online fetish pornography just as he has begun overseeing a criminal trial involving the distribution of sexually explicit scatological videos.
Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Chief Judge Mary Schroeder during oral arguments in San Francisco in 2003. Kozinski is accused of maintaining a public stash of online fetish pornography.
Opening arguments were getting under way in the obscenity case in federal court in Los Angeles yesterday morning when the Los Angeles Times posted a story online reporting that Judge Alex Kozinski's Web site contained images including "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 site also contained pictures of urination and defecation, though they were "not presented in a sexual context," the paper said.
Judge Kozinski, 57, disabled the site after being asked about the images in an interview Tuesday night. He said he was not aware the images and videos could be publicly accessed. He called some images "degrading ... and just gross," but defended other items as "funny."
"I think it's odd and interesting. It's part of life," Judge Kozinski told the Times.
The disclosure led to the suspension yesterday of the trial of a producer of so-called scat porn, Ira Isaacs, the Associated Press reported last night.
The Pasadena session was arranged so jurors could watch the videos at issue. "Four-and-a-half hours of very disgusting porn movies, scatological, feces, urine, animals, bestiality, the works," Mr. Diamond told The New York Sun at midday yesterday.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
Let’s outlaw pornography. Would that make you feel better?
Yes, as a matter of fact. Free speech has been turned upside down by our courts. You have unlimited pornography, and you can burn the flag, but you get in trouble if you try to talk about politics at election time, and if you preach politics from the pulpit you lose your tax exempt status unless you are a leftist.
Sorry, but I have nothing but contempt for a judge who is addicted to this vile stuff.
It’s not really a one-way street, it’s a vicious circle. You don’t watch this kind of pornography unless you are morally perverted; but watching this kind of pornography can pervert you. You can fall deeper and deeper into it.
Not only drugs are addicting. Research shows that gambling can be addictive, and so so can pornography.
After reading the article twice, I still am not sure what happened here.
The title, and some of the text ‘implies’ that the Judge had been collecting and watching this type of porn for a long time.
It also leaves open the option that it was a website that he and the jurors, had access to, and that the ‘files’ were still on his PC.
Even his comments tend to indicate he was talking about the stuff in reference to the case.
His statement that he didn’t know others could access his PC might have meant he left the files on his PC, so he could review them (I know, sounds funny) as needed, and didn’t think there was a risk the public could access them.
I have read several articles on this, and maybe it’s just me, but something smells.
Yeah. Read it again.
It is likely these ‘files’ were from the trial, and the judge had them on his PC and wasn’t aware they were part of the SHARED files, available to anyone accessing his website.
Granted, I could be wrong, but that is what is between the lines, and all the ‘sensationalism’ is an attempt to get the ‘public’ to turn against the Judge, and get the case thrown out of court.
Who would do that? The ‘artist’ that is on trial for distributing this exact type of porn. That seems to be the most logical.
I agree that many kinds of behavior can be “addictive”, but to blame the behavior in and of its self, rather than the human acting out the behavior is most questionable.
Conclusion: Judgie Poo simply is deeply and profoundly warped. Like smokers or druggies, simply quitting one’s addiction (be it Liberalism or pron) is the essential decision.
The horrors of pornography. This vile stuff is straight from the devil. It’s eating at the fabric of our society. Sigh.
Give me a break. Burning the flag is no-where near on the same page as looking at pornography. One has to throw out all rules of common-sense to put both in the same sentence.
Flag burning should be treated as it is, a crime against the United States punishable by the courts.
Pornography should be treated as it is, something adults should have the right to look at and view whenever they feel like it. End of story.
Repeat after me:
Burning flag harms country, looking at porn does not.
How does one become addicted to viewing porn? What is the treatment? Throwing around the word addiction in relation to viewing porn is an insult to anyone who happens to have legitimate addiction problems (cocaine, heroin, alcohol)
Considering the judge in question does issue some rather stupid verdicts, term limits for these judges are needed. (And senators and Representatives and just about anyone else elected or appointed by an individual who was elected)
Yeah, give me a break!
It is always pretty easy for someone with any psychological training to pick out the people using defense mechanisms because they use terms that are so emotionally invested as invectives pertaining to whatever they are against. Terms such as "horrors of pornography", "addicted to this vile stuff", "Pornography degrades and dehumanizes women", etc.
Projection, reaction formation, denial- or some combination of them. These are the defense mechanisms that are put up by those who can't emotionally handle a subject. Defense mechanisms distort reality in order to avoid unpleasant emotions; the person who uses them has an impaired ability to recognize and accept reality. They get so furiously angry if someone simply points out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect, or that the subject matter isn't really that dangerous or destructive. It's really fascinating to watch these mental processes manifest themselves.
Paraphrasing the Bard's line in one of his plays, "Methinks thou dost protest too much", one who has so much emotionally involved in a subject can't usually discuss that subject without resorting to uber-emotional invectives.
Trying to rationally discuss the subject or provide factual, rational arguments to try to persuade the person usually won't even dent their rage on the subject. These people "feel" rather than think [remind you of anything else- like liberals?] and rational thought won't usually do anything for them. The only way is to change the person's emotional responses along with his thoughts- which will probably never be done on a forum like this.
I can see Projection being used by our faux Roman philosopher here, attributing those "nasty, vile" emotions/attractions to porn to the Judge in the story, and to anyone else who makes any seemingly neutral comments on the subject. They're all lumped together: degrading or dehumanizing, or "You don’t watch this kind of pornography unless you are morally perverted".
The Reaction Formation is probably the worst part though, as it turns an unacceptable feeling or desire into its complete opposite. Which is where we find that the people who are the most emotionally invested in and, yes, violently opposed to a subject, such as Pr0n, are the ones who are at the forefront holding the pitchforks and torches, chanting "Burn, witch, burn". We see the results of catering to these emotional cripples' vocal outcries every election year with the stepped up "enforcement" by fed, state and local PD's in closing down dirty bookstores, raiding neighborhood card games or busting street prostitutes, and pretty much any other non-violent activity that the goody-two-shoes scream in outrage about.
It was absolutely hilarious reading the vilest, most emotionally negative comments on the FLDS threads. There were those who felt that the state and local authorities had overstepped their legal bounds and bypassed the Constitution, and then there were the ones who shouted the nastiest, crude and extremely emotional epithets against anyone who wasn't "with them" in condemning the FLDS and everything connected with them. Just someone making a simple observation that maybe some Consitutional or civil rights had been violated brought forth the most vilifying, emotional reactions. You could sure tell who was emotionally invested in desiring to have multiple wives and screwing underage girls- and it wasn't the ones who were raising the Constitutional questions. It seems the same here- mention Pr0n of any sort and you get hyper emotional vilification of the subjects and anyone who would defend them or the Pr0n.
Like I say, it's just hilarious to get some popcorn and sit back and watch these people. They're so revealing about themselves. [grin]
By the way, I totally agree with your observation about term limits- for all. There just shouldn't be any way for someone to be allowed to make a career for life of a legislative or judicial post. Just look at Teddy Kennedy (if you have the stomach for it).
Cheers...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.