Re: "Intending To Upload Something Else"

1

Ha. It's transparently clear to anyone who reads Kozinski's opinions that he's the sort of asshole who really gets off on being the cleverest guy in the room -- something made rather easier when it's a courtroom, and you're the judge -- and it's always nice to see that sort of person in this kind of situation, because schadenfreude was invented for this personality type. I bet there are appellate lawyers all over the country who have been on the receiving end of a Kosinski jab and who are laughing their asses off right now.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 8:39 PM
horizontal rule
2

I don't see why this is a problem. Porn is legal, right?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 8:41 PM
horizontal rule
3

To be fair, it does sound like he really thought the site was private. But it is very, very funny.

Painted like cows, though?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 8:41 PM
horizontal rule
4

So where's the link ?


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 8:42 PM
horizontal rule
5

I don't see why this is a problem. Porn is legal, right?

It's not a problem from a legal point of view, Ogged, it is just fucking hilarious.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 8:42 PM
horizontal rule
6

2: Well, he's got a major obscenity case before him now, so that's at the least an appearance problem, and I expect he'll recuse himself. But you're right, generally it's a dignity and reputation issue, not a crime.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 8:43 PM
horizontal rule
7

Or I suppose you meant that, from a libertarian POV, it's not clear why he's even apologizing.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 8:43 PM
horizontal rule
8

it's not clear why he's even apologizing

Right. He's Judge Fucking Kozinski. Seems like a "fuck you, so what?" is in order.

I had considered posting about the original trial, but man, that is some unsympathetic content.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 8:45 PM
horizontal rule
9

Right. He's Judge Fucking Kozinski. Seems like a "fuck you, so what?" is in order.

Well, even libertarians sometimes have to learn about aspects of the moral order, as distinct from the legal one, and I say no funnier way for that lesson to be conveyed than Alex Kozinski mistakenly making his smirking and spank material available to the world during an obscenity trial.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 8:48 PM
horizontal rule
10

Word is he's circulating the story that his son also maintains the site, and that much of the material was probably put up by him. Nice. (Although I should add I'm hearing this at several removes, may just be a rumor, so perhaps unfair to accuse him of blaming his kid.)


Posted by: potchkeh | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 8:50 PM
horizontal rule
11

Yeah, it's not like he blogged about a disturbing dream with sexual content or anything like that.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 8:51 PM
horizontal rule
12

10: He's also saying this:

Kozinski said he began saving the sexually explicit materials and other items of interest years ago, the Times said. People send me stuff like this all the time," he said.

Why do these people keep sending me pr0n?


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 8:51 PM
horizontal rule
13

If all the pro-obscenity judges have to recuse themselves from obscenity trials, we're screwed.


Posted by: Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 8:52 PM
horizontal rule
14

To be fair, the character of the dirty-minded judge is of course well-established, and in some ways this is just a US version of a British phenomenon.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 8:54 PM
horizontal rule
15

Well fucketty, I'm not even going to pretend to that certain brand of snarky upper-middle-creative class liberal hip cynicism that everyone must pretend to, at least some of the time, if they even want to post at this blog.

Christ, are there no standards anymore?! Is there no, you know, quality control any longer?!

Such an embarrassment of riches of true awfulness. Such a poverty of language to express it.


Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
16

Ah, the rumor that he's blaming his son is apparently legit.


Posted by: potchkeh | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 8:56 PM
horizontal rule
17

Mary Catherine's cow porn is apparently much better than Kozinski's cow porn.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 8:57 PM
horizontal rule
18

17: Bears pwn cows.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 8:58 PM
horizontal rule
19

The fact that his son is named Yale does make me somewhat less sympathetic to the honorable Judge Kozinski.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 8:59 PM
horizontal rule
20

Man, Reagan sure knew how to pick 'em.


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 9:03 PM
horizontal rule
21

The fact that his son is named Yale does make me somewhat less sympathetic to the honorable Judge Kozinski.

No way! This is almost as good as the Terry Pratchett joke about the woman with a limited grasp of principles of intergenerational social mobility who named her children Duke, Prince and King.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 9:08 PM
horizontal rule
22

I didn't understand 15.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 9:10 PM
horizontal rule
23

Yeah, it's not like he blogged about a disturbing dream with sexual content or anything like that.

Did you think that dream was disturbing?


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 9:11 PM
horizontal rule
24

who named her children Duke, Prince and King.

Now, who in the name of God would name her children thus, without very good reason indeed?

I give up, I truly do.


Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 9:13 PM
horizontal rule
25

Now, who in the name of God would name her children thus, without very good reason indeed?

Actually, lots of people do. I imagine they think it sounds dignified. Besides, Earl is a perfectly ordinary name.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 9:17 PM
horizontal rule
26

Visit-the-Infidel-With-Explanatory-Pamphlets.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 9:18 PM
horizontal rule
27

Visit-the-Infidel-With-Explanatory-Pamphlets.

It's wise not to confuse Om with Orm.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 9:21 PM
horizontal rule
28

who named her children Duke, Prince and King.

You can find figures in public life back before WWII who always went by those as first names, whatever they'd been Christened, to say nothing of contemporary musicians or machete-wielding warlords.

Wasn't the unpleasant character Claudette Colbert was supposed to marry in It Happened One Night, who arrived for the wedding in an autogyro, named "King?"


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 9:24 PM
horizontal rule
29

Yeah, King W-something.

Your feet to fly off and be buried in an anthill!


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 9:26 PM
horizontal rule
30

And he doesn't wear anything under his robes, either. And when he's sentencing someone, he loosens them up a little by asking them "Do you know where my other hand is right now?"


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 9:29 PM
horizontal rule
31

The fact that his son is named Yale

Upwardly-striving. Stanley Kozinski named his son "LSU."


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 9:47 PM
horizontal rule
32

In a minor-key defense of Kozinski, he's an infinitely more thoughtful and less doctrinaire judge than his colleagues in the "conservative/libertarian know-it-all" Reagan judicial appointee pantheon (Posner, Easterbrook, Sentelle). With that said, I've had a fair amount of professional interaction with AK, and he'd certainly be in the top 1 appellate court judges whom I'd expect to have this problem. I expect he won't worry about it very much and will continue to serve.


Posted by: robert halford | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 10:00 PM
horizontal rule
33

In a minor-key defense of Kozinski, he's an infinitely more thoughtful and less doctrinaire judge than his colleagues in the "conservative/libertarian know-it-all" Reagan judicial appointee pantheon (Posner, Easterbrook, Sentelle). With that said, I've had a fair amount of professional interaction with AK, and he'd certainly be in the top 1 appellate court judges whom I'd expect to have this problem. I expect he won't worry about it very much and will continue to serve.


Posted by: robert halford | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 10:01 PM
horizontal rule
34

Trust Emerson to get all pervy and some such pure shite, when the rest of us is just honestly and deeply agonizing. Emerson! Don't let your 'type B' personality run (or should I say amble) away with you. Though you're on the right track with the low heart-rate, of course.


Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 10:03 PM
horizontal rule
35

I expect he'll recuse himself.

Surely he should have recused himself anyway, even had these materials not come to light.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 10:09 PM
horizontal rule
36

I also know of a Korean-American family who named their sons Harvard, Yale, and -- amazingly -- Georgetown Gee. Harvard Gee turned out to be a big time crook and is now in the federal pen.


Posted by: robert halford | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 10:10 PM
horizontal rule
37

36: They were just trying to avoid any association with the clich├ęd "Prince" mentioned above.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 10:22 PM
horizontal rule
38

The truly upper class know that "George Towne" is the better choice.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 10:35 PM
horizontal rule
39

38: As do those who name suburban subdivisions outside of cities with large ethnic populations.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 10:41 PM
horizontal rule
40

I also always wondered if G. Gee learned how to properly please a man from his courtesan French aunts and Maurice Chevalier.


Posted by: robert halford | Link to this comment | 06-11-08 10:45 PM
horizontal rule
41


Now, who in the name of God would name her children thus, without very good reason indeed?

Better than the Shanda-Lears, and their daughter Crystal.

Or my cow-orker Kool, who plans to name his firstborn son Ferry.


Posted by: Martin Wisse | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 12:12 AM
horizontal rule
42

Yale is a not uncommon Jewish name. I don't know enough to guess what its "proper" Hebrew form might be -- Yair, perhaps?


Posted by: Vance Maverick | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 2:00 AM
horizontal rule
43

To be fair, somebody had the last name Harvard and Yale at some point.

Kozinski's writing is kind of fun. I read a copyright case of his on video games, and it was clear that he has lived experience with them.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 3:55 AM
horizontal rule
44

42: Yael, I think.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 4:38 AM
horizontal rule
45

Is Yael not a girl's name, as in she who did for Sisera? I think this guy named his kid after the institution funded by Elihu, and he can't wriggle out of it.


Posted by: OneFatEnglishman | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 4:49 AM
horizontal rule
46

Oh, that's right, with a hammer and a nail. I did not win the prize for scripture knowledge.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 4:51 AM
horizontal rule
47

There's gotta be a Potter Stewart joke in here somewhere.


Posted by: minneapolitan | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 5:43 AM
horizontal rule
48

I know an Israeli woman named Yael. Her kid plays hockey with Keegan.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 5:46 AM
horizontal rule
49

I recall that Kozinski was much admired in the mid-90's by snowboarders for writing a pro-snowboarding, anti-skiing op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.


Posted by: Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 5:53 AM
horizontal rule
50

Yael Naim is French-born Israeli and sings that annoyingly catchy song from the recent Apple ads.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 6:04 AM
horizontal rule
51

the judge case, it's called projection
psychologically if i intepret correctly


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 6:10 AM
horizontal rule
52

r


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 6:10 AM
horizontal rule
53

50: Wow, that is annoyingly catchy.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 6:16 AM
horizontal rule
54

50: Israeli chicks are hott. I guess its the whole Mediterranean really.

It is so hard maintaining the dignity of any office when sexual explicitness is deprecated.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 7:08 AM
horizontal rule
55

So apparently the rest of you don't agree, but I personally think Apostropher would be an awesome federal judge.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 7:35 AM
horizontal rule
56

Porn on the bench and cornholing at the highest levels of state government.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 7:50 AM
horizontal rule
57

55 gets it exactly right. [bangs gavel]


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 7:52 AM
horizontal rule
58

I hope you at least took the gavel out for dinner first.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 7:54 AM
horizontal rule
59

6: LizardBreath

generally it's a lack of dignity and sleazy reputation issue, not a crime.

Fixed that for you.

10, 16: blaming the son

Ah. I wondered when the "it was an accident" plea would revert to the classic "It isn't mine, I was holding for a friend" excuse.

I'm with Mary Catholic on this one. I want my judges to uphold at least the appearance of propriety. With privilege goes responsibility. If you don't like the conditions don't take the job.


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed! | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 8:14 AM
horizontal rule
60

Expanding on 59 - I get the whole shrine of justice "ooh ahh" thing. I appreciate it. The "image" has been carefully maintained for centuries. Look at courthouses - they are cathedrals. Look at the costumes. Look at the rituals. It is great theater and I respect that.

This frigging judge broke character! I mean it. It is just an easy way to get attention at the expense of the overall show. He obviously has no respect for the craft!

Send him back to bad high school "theatre" where he belongs.


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed! | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 8:23 AM
horizontal rule
61

So wait, you're saying that even though judges are by-and-large foul-mouthed petty despots with strange ambitions and sympathies to perversion they should hide their double lives behind a cloak of hypocrisy, for the good of the masses? Do I get you on that one?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 8:26 AM
horizontal rule
62

He obviously has no respect for the craft!

He'd fit right in an episode of Ally McBeal.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 8:34 AM
horizontal rule
63

61:

So wait, you're saying that even though judges are by-and-large foul-mouthed petty despots with strange ambitions and sympathies to perversion they should hide their double lives behind a cloak of hypocrisy, for the good of the masses? Do I get you on that one?

Sheesh. Not for the good of the masses. For the integrity of the show. Like any other actor.

Otherwise you get me loud and clear.

Thanks for bringing this up, because it shows once again how I am out-of-synch with people. I mean to me this stuff is just painfully obvious and sometimes literally right in front of our faces and yet sometimes it seems I'm the only one who sees it.

You think those long courthouse staircases leading up to the massive doors built themselves? The Aztecs were doing this stuff ages ago.

Somebody designed them that way for a purpose. Like any other set.


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed! | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 8:40 AM
horizontal rule
64

Well, of course it's all a big show, but don't we want to demystify it? It's all designed to cow the masses with the omnipotence and legitimacy of state authority.

I don't like it that he's mocked for this. It should be accepted that everyone is a freak. This is the first step to true freedom for all.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 9:37 AM
horizontal rule
65

You think those long courthouse staircases leading up to the massive doors built themselves? The Aztecs were doing this stuff ages ago.

Along with human sacrifice, yeah. I can't quite figure out your take, though: are you saying that the artifice is necessary to maintain a nation of laws, or that the artifice should be seen for the sham it is and rejected as an illegitimate authority? Or something less maximalist?

I don't like it that he's mocked for this.

I don't really, either. Whatever his merits or flaws as a jurist (which flaws I understand to be considerable), it seems like it would behoove us all to have more people with "nontraditional" kinks and personal beliefs making decisions about when nontraditionality rises to the level of a dysfunction best cured with incarcerations.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 9:43 AM
horizontal rule
66

I guess freaky porn isn't quite as mainstream as I thought. People would like porn a lot more if they watched this.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 10:05 AM
horizontal rule
67

Along with human sacrifice, yeah. I can't quite figure out your take, though: are you saying that the artifice is necessary to maintain a nation of laws, or that the artifice should be seen for the sham it is and rejected as an illegitimate authority? Or something less maximalist?

As I seem to be answering a lot these days, my answer is 'it depends.'

In my opinion the rule of law is generally a GOOD thing and the artifice is a necessary but not sufficient condition to maintaining the rule of law.

The artifice is not all that is required. Respect for judges, for example, requires that the judges themselves be respectable. In addition they must uphold the "silence in the court - I'm the boss" character when playing the part. The costumes by themselves are not enough. High school "theatre," for example, is rife with great costumes and bad actors. At least in the rich schools.

That is why this judge should go back to high school.

And should 'justice' be de-mystified? If 'mystifying' means hidden then yes. If 'mystifying' means good theater then no. "Justice" should be open and respectable but people need a show too. A trial is both a morality play and real life at the same time.


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed! | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 10:08 AM
horizontal rule
68

67: Careful, TtC, you're going to ruin your carefully cultivated crazed persona if you keep talking sense like that.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 10:15 AM
horizontal rule
69

67: eh, I dunno. I think judges are people are should be judged as such. It's enough that we're so deep in the private lives of our politicians and celebrities; do we really have to subject appointed jurists to the same harsh light?

To put it another way, I don't think there's many jobs that saying (or linking or uploading) stupid shit on the internet should disqualify you for, and am therefore inclined to give this dude a break for thinking the same thing.

I also think using hypocrisy as a tool to maintain state authority is, uh, overrated.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 10:16 AM
horizontal rule
70

High school "theatre,"

Careful, Tripp. Excessive scare-quoting can lead to a condition of chronic groganism.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 10:20 AM
horizontal rule
71

I also think using hypocrisy as a tool to maintain state authority is, uh, overrated.

agreed, and I think 67 keeps Tripp's reputation for craziness in fine form.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 10:24 AM
horizontal rule
72

It's enough that we're so deep in the private lives of our politicians and celebrities; do we really have to subject appointed jurists to the same harsh light?

Sifu,

Perhaps we disagree because I think maintaining a website is a public act. Do you really think it is private?

I know for a fact that some employment contracts have a specific clause that states the employee must not do anything, public or private, that reflects badly on the employer.

I don't know for sure if this is true for judges but I think it should be true. Why do you think I use a semi-pseudonym here? I am free to say many things I cannot otherwise.

I also think using hypocrisy as a tool to maintain state authority is, uh, overrated.

You think I am endorsing hypocrisy? Show me where I have said that. Please.


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed! | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 10:36 AM
horizontal rule
73

72: I know for a fact that some employment contracts have a specific clause that states the employee must not do anything, public or private, that reflects badly on the employer.

Right, and that's annoying, too. In my own personal opinion an employer's ability to control their employee's lives should end the minute they're off the clock.

Perhaps we disagree because I think maintaining a website is a public act. Do you really think it is private?

I don't, although I think if you rephrased the question (to ask, e.g. if law student's beach photos on their facebook pages should be fair game to link to and rate on a hotness scale) I think you'd find a lot of people do. I do, however, think that maintaining a web site outside of work, that you don't use work computers to maintain, doesn't, and shouldn't, particularly have much to do with your job.

You think I am endorsing hypocrisy? Show me where I have said that. Please.

I took you as saying that judges should keep their private kinks and funny habits private, so that they can better project an image of impartial, disinterested authority, which strikes me as hypocritical. I apologize if I misread you.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 10:41 AM
horizontal rule
74

PGD,

agreed, and I think 67 keeps Tripp's reputation for craziness in fine form.

I think that you have not thought this through.


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed! | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 10:45 AM
horizontal rule
75

I took you as saying that judges should keep their private kinks and funny habits private, so that they can better project an image of impartial, disinterested authority, which strikes me as hypocritical. I apologize if I misread you.

I think you are saying judges must be respected while being free to act in a public non-respectable manner.

That may not be hypocrisy but it sure is naive about human nature.

Look, people must be judged on their deeds, nothing else. Even within that stricture there are variations.

Personal thoughts and feelings should be anything goes unless they result in deeds.

Once we get into deeds - including speaking and physical action things get complicated.

Some private speech is wrong. Some public speech is as well. Same with other actions.

Sometimes it even depends on who is saying them.

In this case a Judge speaking publicly was (in my opinion) in the wrong. The job (or role) of Judge comes with strings attached. You don't want to play the role, don't take the gig.


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed! | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 10:54 AM
horizontal rule
76

75: what I'm saying is that I don't think uploading stupid and possibly dirty pictures to the internet is non-respectable. I further think that trying to define "respectability" in such a way is a backdoor method of enforcing morality.

Just as a f'rinstance, what if, instead of being a libertarian asshole, Judge Kozinski were gay, and had a profile on gay.com where he was hanging out on a beach (in, say, a speedo) with a bunch of other dudes. Would that make him unfit to be a jurist?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 11:08 AM
horizontal rule
77

Sigh. No, the web site is not public, in the sense of part of his public role as a judge. The web site is not respectable, but it is also not not-respectable. Respect for his professional abilities should not be affected by snooping in his private life to see what his weird tastes in photos are.

It always irritates me how complicit Americans are in their oppression by employers.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 11:08 AM
horizontal rule
78

66: I guess freaky porn isn't quite as mainstream as I thought.

No, it isn't. That's part of the point of a larger complaint (one I take it Mary Catherine was gesturing toward): that no, in fact, most people do not, after all, look at porn casually, and not at freaky porn of a questionably misogynistic nature (i.e. the cow-postured women). But we've talked about this somewhat ad nauseam, the problem of normalizing porn and what that does to everyday relations, romantic and otherwise, between the sexes; cf. also questions about the public display of tastelessness, or shamelessness.

I suppose those who resist that are concerned to maintain some (unspecified) divide between the public and the private. Contemporary society is in the process of blurring the line to the point of extinction.

Etc.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 11:12 AM
horizontal rule
79

I suppose those who resist that are concerned to maintain some (unspecified) divide between the public and the private. Contemporary society is in the process of blurring the line to the point of extinction.

Right, but there's lots of conflict over whether it will be blurred by bringing "public" levels of constraint into private lives, or just relaxing and accepting the "private" peccadilloes of public figures. For lots of reasons, I think the latter is much more progressive and the former is a mess.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 11:34 AM
horizontal rule
80

most people do not, after all, look at porn casually, and not at freaky porn of a questionably misogynistic nature

No, but lots of people look (casually or otherwise) at non-freaky porn of an unmistakeably misogynistic nature. A lot of "reality porn" is like this.


Posted by: Michael Vanderwheel, B.A. | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 11:42 AM
horizontal rule
81

whether it will be blurred by bringing "public" levels of constraint into private lives, or just relaxing and accepting the "private" peccadilloes of public figures.

Yes, it's true that those two options are the way this debate is played out, but those choices are too stark if defined along a chiefly sexual axis.

I don't endorse a repressed society, obviously; however, there is room for a notion of dignity, decorum and mutual respect as desirable in public life. These provide space in the public sphere for others to be themselves, as it were. If, in one's private life, those things are sometimes suspended, that should be kept private. That doesn't rule out the publicizing of unconstrained behavior that's otherwise mutually respectful, dignified, and so on. In other words: I feel free to flaunt societal norms by being hippie-like, say, but I'm not stripping anyone of his or her dignity in doing so.

(Oh, and I'm perfectly happy to accept the private peccadillos of public figures, as long as they don't appear to invite a conflict of interest, as is the case with Kozinski, who should have recused himself given the nature of the case at hand; which is not, by the way, remotely the same as being brow-beaten by his employers.)


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
82

Patterico has much more on this incident. The LAT was tipped off by a lawyer who has been feuding with Kozinski.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 12:39 PM
horizontal rule
83

Parsimon I just so totally couldn't disagree with you more. Mandating "dignity", "decorum" and "mutual respect" is idiotic. There's somebody out there who exactly and specifically believes that you are stripping people of their dignity by being who you are, and what you're saying (implicitly) is they should have the right to impose negative consequences on your life because of it. Either that, or your saying your morality is the one true morality and people should be bent to it, which is incidentally the same shit you hear from the theocrats.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 12:44 PM
horizontal rule
84

PGD:

Sigh. No, the web site is not public, in the sense of part of his public role as a judge.

I am assuming that this website is open to the public and it is under the Judge's public name. If I am wrong then I hope someone corrects me.

In the meantime, do you know the distinction between a 'public' figure and a 'private' figure? Do you think there should be one? Do you think a Judge is a public figure?

Being a Judge is a special position that carries with it certain privileges and responsibilities. Judges can like, judge people. Judges should also behave in a way that maintains dignity and respect for the law.

I don't consider this oppression by an employer but you could argue that. Good luck with that.

I'm all for freedom and egalitarianism and sticking it to the man but I also know the importance of rituals and images and theater to our society.

I suppose that is why I consider myself a moderate and in my opinion a realist.

You can proclaim all day long that in every single case appearances shouldn't matter but good luck with that sentiment.

I prefer to live in the real world not an imagined ideal world.


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed! | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 12:55 PM
horizontal rule
85

I also know the importance of rituals and images and theater to our society.

As I remarked on above with my reference to Ally McBeal there's no reason to think that the Judge is breaking the juridical fourth wall here. You can have your rituals and images and Judge Kozinski can his rituals and images, too.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 1:00 PM
horizontal rule
86

84

"I am assuming that this website is open to the public and it is under the Judge's public name. If I am wrong then I hope someone corrects me."

According to the LAT article:

"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."


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 1:06 PM
horizontal rule
87

83: Sifu,

Again with the either/or? You know better than that.

Requiring decorum from a Judge is not idiotic. It does not lead to the tyranny of the majority. If you are asking who decides decorum the answer is "the public" in the case of elected officials and "the judicial system" in the case of contract disputes.

Is this the way it should be? Until I get to play God I can't think of anything much better. In the meantime cultures need traditions. Cultures need theater. Cultures need institutions. (yeah, I know about the problems with these too, but we still need them).


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed! | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 1:06 PM
horizontal rule
88

83: First things first, I was really groping to express whatever I was trying to express, and knew it was coming out badly.

If I was mandating anything, it would have been mutual respect (and perhaps dignity, as I understand it, which may differ from the way in which other people understand it). And in wanting to emphasize mutual respect, I was thinking of the damned cow-posture women in Kozinski's porn. That's what I want to say he's perfectly welcome to in private, but I do not want to see normalized in public.

they should have the right to impose negative consequences on your life because of it.

This is difficult stuff; I've spent half my life going back and forth, toeing the line in order not to suffer negative consequences, then throwing caution to the wind. Do people have the right to impose those consequences on me? My god, what a question.

I will stand by my sense that I wouldn't want to see Kozinski-style porn considered normal, worth a shrug when publicly displayed. It's degrading to women. Be who you are, sure, but eh, not in that case.

I need to head out for a bit. I haven't been much more clear, I'm afraid.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 1:10 PM
horizontal rule
89

James,

"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."

Thanks for the info. To me public access versus no public access matters a great deal. Of course most of us have learned by college that if you tell something private to one person then soon everyone will know, and I do expect a Judge to know how to keep private things private. It would seem to me that would also be part of the job description for a Judge, but what do I know?


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed! | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 1:11 PM
horizontal rule
90

most people do not, after all, look at porn casually

You're still on dial-up, aren't you?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 1:43 PM
horizontal rule
91

look at porn casually

Maybe he was too casual. A real pro like Clarence Thomas would have known about data encryption and server access credentials.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 1:58 PM
horizontal rule
92
Here comes the blind commissioner
They've got him in a trance
One hand's on the tightrope walker
The other's in his pants

Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 2:03 PM
horizontal rule
93

90: I wouldn't watch it even if I weren't. I've said this before: I know that watching very much pron would distort my sense of what's sexually exciting, and blunt my awareness of and outrage at blatant misogyny. Just as taking too many drugs realigns one's receptors. Watching (a lot of) porn feels like taking (too many) drugs.

By the way, I hope it's clear that I don't think this Judge Kozinski should be fired or any such thing.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 2:15 PM
horizontal rule
94

Wait, so the argument here is that judges can't engage in legal activities if they are considered deviant or perhaps just indecorous? And this applies to obscure judges such as federal appellate judges, with whom the public nearly never interacts? Seriously? *Perhaps* a local magistrate who interacts with the public on a regular basis has some responsibility in this regard(which, btw, is enforced by election and retantion votes!), but, in general, I can't imagine the broader argument being seriously advanced by anyone who interacts with judges on a regular basis. Kozinski is well known precisely because he is somewhat of a character (asshole with enormous ego) while he is performing his official duties. This quirkiness has not, however, prevented him from being well-respected for his intellectual prowess and fidelity to the law. So long as he acts with due respect for the law in his official duties, the public's knowledge of his peccadilloes is immaterial.


Posted by: Grumps | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 2:41 PM
horizontal rule
95

When I was a little girl, I thought it was illegal for priests to drink or smoke.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
96

93: speaking as somebody who's done both I say bullpuckey. You have it within your power to understand things as you wish to understand them. The idea that there are thoughts and feelings and experiences so dangerous they will turn you unalterably into some kind of monster is, well, stupid. Now, I'm not saying something crazy like "addiction's not real, man!" I'm just saying that another word for "rewiring the brain" is "learning things".


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 2:56 PM
horizontal rule
97

Sifu Tweety anagrams to Peter North, doesn't it?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 2:57 PM
horizontal rule
98

94 Grumps,

Oh great. And so the engaging and fun hair-splitting morality lesson presented by our media for our entertainment turns out to be, once again, much ado about nothing.

Pwned by the media once again.

Put another way - it matters a great deal how much of a public figure this guy is and I suspect the media left that little detail out to make the whole story more dramatic.

Frigging media.


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed! | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 3:00 PM
horizontal rule
99

Parsimon: I think we are seeing a permanent shift in mores about porn, a product of its easy availability in the Internet age. It's easy to be disoriented by the rate of change, especially since it brings to light an incredible amount of misogny that had been hidden. But it's too soon to say what the final outcome will be.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 3:14 PM
horizontal rule
100

I haven't read most of the thread so I'm not sure who Grumps is arguing with in 94, but I agree with most of what he says there. Except that the only way Alex Kozinski is an obscure judge is if every non-Supreme Court judge is an obscure judge.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 3:23 PM
horizontal rule
101

Is there really nothing on Volokh about this incident with Kozinski? Wow, does that put me in a conspiratorial (no pun intended, seriously) mindset.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 3:28 PM
horizontal rule
102

The idea that there are thoughts and feelings and experiences so dangerous they will turn you unalterably into some kind of monster is, well, stupid.

But...but...it's such a HOT idea! Where will our late night Cinemax movies come from if it's not true? Not to mention our fantasies?


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 3:46 PM
horizontal rule
103

100: I should have said "obscure public official," as I think it likely that less than 1% of the public could identify Kozinski (although, as judges go, he is very well known). I'm having trouble figuring out exactly why he should recuse himself. Is the argument that he likes obscene pornography so he is likely to try to define obscinity as narrowly as possible so that he can continue to exercise his deviant tastes? That seems like too broad of a recusal standard.


Posted by: Grumps | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 4:09 PM
horizontal rule
104

96: I was speaking for myself. I have an addictive personality. I realize some things aren't dangerous (and actually I'd just say 'a bad idea') for a lot of people, and I'd never suggest society-wide rules, or god forbid, legislation, according to what happen to be bad ideas for me.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 4:32 PM
horizontal rule
105

This viewpoint is bound to be unpopular, but it's a real problem that a prominent 9th Circuit judge thinks that the degradation of women is acceptable enough that he maintains a website containing materials arguably degrading women.

I know that analogies are like illegal in America or whatever, but I think a baseline level of misogyny is so ingrained in a lot of people (including myself) that it's useful to recast the issue in terms of some category other than sex. So: A lot of people are maybe a little racist. That's life, and you can't screen out everyone who privately has some racist inclinations. But a guy who thinks nothing of keeping a website of racist jokes, and e-mailing racist jokes to his friends -- on some level, this guy thinks that his racism is okay. And that guy might not be the person you want deciding your racial harassment case.


Posted by: jms | Link to this comment | 06-12-08 4:54 PM
horizontal rule
106

If the files here are representative of the site, this is some pretty weak tea. Mostly Fark-level stuff.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-13-08 12:00 AM
horizontal rule
107

How great is it that I've posted (via Moira) the very first picture on his page?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06-13-08 12:08 AM
horizontal rule
108

Nope. I'm wrong. I linked to one a lot like it.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06-13-08 12:09 AM
horizontal rule
109

That is, this is being reported as porn, but it appears (again, if the stuff on patterico is representative) to be mostly joke images that use porn as a prop.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-13-08 12:19 AM
horizontal rule
110

Lessig comes to the defense of Kozinski, rather convincingly. A misconfigured up home FTP server appears to be the culprit. This in addition to the relative inoffensiveness of the stuff linked, compared to how it was described. My favorite line for Lessig's piece:

If there was malicious intent in this video, it was the donkey's.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-13-08 11:12 AM
horizontal rule