Thursday, June 12, 2008
Dan Slater, on his Wall Street Law Blog, wrote an interesting story entitled Judge Kozinski on His Porn Site: “It’s part of life.” It reports on a LA Times article which exposed a web site maintained by the Judge. The Judge claims that he thought that site was private. Mr. Slater summarizes the article as follows:
Kozinski, 57, acknowledged in an interview with the LAT that he had posted the materials, which included a photo of a 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.”
He 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, Kozinski, who pointed out that he never used appeals court computers to maintain the Web site, blocked public access to the site.
Mr. Slater then goes on to quote from the LA Times article which interviewed ethics expert Stephen Gillers who indicated that the Judge may have to recuse himself from certain cases because the public may question is objectivity.
I believe Professor Gillers is wrong-very wrong. While not condoning what Kozinki did, there is no indication that he did anything unlawful or even unethical. If a judge gets a speeding ticket, does that mean that they cannot adjudicate one?? I hope that our politically correct world does not interpret the cannon of judicial ethics as suggested by Professor Gillers.
The LA Times article is available here.
Mitchell H. Rubinstein