June 16, 2008
In Case You're Living Under a Rock Part 2
Judge Kozinski, chief judge of the 9th Circuit, revealed that he had a porn stash as he was presiding, as visiting judge, over the first obscenity trial in many years in Los Angeles. He declared a mistrial due to recusal after the trial began - that could constitute a double jeopardy bar, I've read -- and is having to deal with a lot of, um, questions. A recent piece on the whole mess is here. The porn apparently involved portrayals of women nude painted as cows and men cavorting with aroused animals.
No, it doesn't have a whole lot to do with statutory interpretation, but it's just amazingly poor judgment at minimum and hypocrisy and a due process problem at worst. Stay tuned through other channels on this one.
At least we know if a judge prefers one form of statutory interpretation over another! (There, I figured out a tenuous link).
June 16, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference In Case You're Living Under a Rock Part 2:
Tracked on Sep 14, 2009 10:15:45 AM
Only one living under a rock would be comfortable using the term "porn stash" to describe the material Kozinski (or a member of his family) was maintaining on the server. I suggest you read around a bit; several widely read blogs suggest your characterization is grossly inaccurate.
Posted by: Mike | Jun 16, 2008 12:56:32 PM
Um... here's the way the LA Times described some of it:
"Among the images on the site were 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. He [Kozinski] defended some of the adult content as 'funny' but conceded that other postings were inappropriate."
I guess "porn" may not be the right word? Disgusting filth? Disturbing vile photos? I guess "porn" may be too soft?
Posted by: David Hricik | Jun 16, 2008 8:01:23 PM