What “Stuff” was on Judge Kozinski’s Personal Website?
USLaw
The LA Times
discovered pornographic material on the website of a respected Appeals
Court Judge who is presiding over a federal case of a filmmaker accused
of distributing “criminally obscene” videos depicting bestiality and
defecation. While the Times described the pornographic content found on
the personal website alex.kozinski.com
of Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,
as including a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like
cows, a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused
farm animal, images of masturbation and public and contortionist sex, a
slide show striptease featuring a transsexual, a series of photos of
women’s crotches as seen through snug fitting clothing or underwear,
and content with themes of defecation and urination, the Times did not
real the specific URL of the material.
USLaw.com has learned that the content, described by Judge Kozinski as “funny… odd and interesting… part of life” (and we agree), consisted of the following hundred plus files that constitute the type of ‘viral videos’ that are commonly circulated among men of a certain humor by email. While the files are no longer available to be downloaded from what turns out to have been the Kozinski family computer, we have provided links to google search results which contain similar files:
The judge, of course, is being attacked for actively curating and storing this material on a computer that, it is reasonable to assume, was accidentally exposed to public access. California Senator Dianne Feinstein, whose constituents include the world’s most prolific producers of R and X rated films and who couldn’t recognize the difference between a camel’s toe and a women’s crotch, finds the distinguished jurist’s behavior “inappropriate”. Others are asserting that his behavior violates copyright laws. We differ.
Not only is the context of the file storage acceptable “fair use”, but if the trial is about the definition of “criminally obscene”, we don’t believe the judge should be recused from the trial any more than a judge should be who isn’t aware of the popularity of such material. For example, should a judge who subscribes to the LA Times be necessarily recused from a trial involving a claim against a newspaper? Afterall, a judge who is a warm-blooded male with a sense of humor, and perhaps prone to an occasional purient indulgence, like the rest of us makes him more likely to maintain impartiality over a matter involving community standards.
The one problem we do have with the Kozinski is his court’s decision that the simple act of making copyright files available for downloading constitutes copyright infringement. He should now realize how easy it is for files to be placed in directories that unintentionally have the effect of making them “available for download” and that such availability alone should no more amount to infringement than his (or his son’s) file management discipline should amount to distributing pornography.
Soure: Yahoo! Site Explorer
Filed Under Judge Alex Kozinski | (trackback)



















