Will All Judges Who Have Viewed Porn Please Stand Up?

As the world now knows, federal appeals court judge Alex Kozinski has looked at pornography and has stored some pornographic files on a personal, nonpublic website. This revelation, and the invasion of privacy that it entails, are apparently justified by the fact that Kozinski is currently presiding, as a temporary trial judge, over a high-profile obscenity prosecution in Los Angeles.

Before this public flogging of a gifted jurist proceeds much further, let's stop to consider that Kozinski has done nothing illegal. The files on his computer, while certainly embarrassing, are constitutionally protected.

Kozinski has the right, under the First Amendment, to possess pornographic materials on his own computer. It is a right that we all have, and for good reason: in a free society, government has no business regulating private choices about what movies to see, books to read or photos to view.

Although Kozinski is a public figure, he has done nothing in his public life to invite this scrutiny of his private life. Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer had, as a prosecutor, aggressively pursued prostitutes and their customers. Senator Larry Craig, before getting busted for soliciting sex in a public bathroom, had exploited anti-gay sentiment for political advantage. But Kozinski doesn't fit the role of hypocrite-gets-his-due. He is miscast in this stock morality tale of politics and scandal.

If Kozinski is removed from the LA obscenity trial because he has viewed and owns pornographic materials, then the judge who replaces him and the judges who hear appeals in the case also will have to be screened for exposure to pornography. Do we really want to go down this road?

Even though Kozinski has done nothing wrong, he is being pressed from all sides to disqualify himself from the federal trial of smut producer Ira Isaacs, presumably on the theory that because Kozinski has viewed pornography, and owns pornography, he cannot be objective in making evidentiary and legal rulings in the case.

Fine. But if Kozinski is removed from the case on that basis, any judge assigned to replace him must also be disqualified if he or she has viewed or possesses pornographic materials. Ditto for the appellate judges who will decide the appeals from the obscenity prosecution. Will all the judges be required to consent to an inspection of their hard drives? Will they be interrogated under oath about their sexual tastes and practices?

This, I submit, is not a road that we should go down.

Kozinski has been done a terrible disservice by whoever leaked to news organizations personal files from the judge's computer and private website. Let's not compound this unfairness by setting a precedent that that we will come to regret.

P.S. Full disclosure: Alex Kozinski is a friend. (A distant friend, but a friend nonetheless.)

Comments

[LongTom]

What bullshit! The "gifted jurist" posted porno on a public site. For a judge, he displayed a distinct lack of judgment. Lots of people look at porno once in a while. Posting your collection on the web makes you something very close to a pornographer.

[Turtleluv6]

A closely watched obscenity trial in Los Angeles federal court was suspended Wednesday after the judge acknowledged maintaining his own publicly accessible website featuring sexually explicit photos and videos.

Why is this not reporting the truth. Above was the first reporting and below is this article do you see something wrong.

As the world now knows, federal appeals court judge Alex Kozinski has looked at pornography and has stored some pornographic files on a personal, nonpublic website.

He is a sick man

[Aleka4]

Are you for real?

Judging by the way americans seem to think what everyone else does in the bedroom is not only their business, but should be made into puritanical law - it seems quite a few of you could benefit from getting some nooky. You might loosen up.

[Liberal2]

I also find the term "pornography" questionable. To me it should refer only to purely negative displays of acts related to sex involving children, animals, or infliction of pain.

A nude body, whether alone or in an act of sex, is disgusting only to the morally "twisted" and the mentally ill.

[KillTheMessenger]

Who says people who are against pornography are disgusted by it? They are probably quite aroused. But, as a matter of fact, these people are even more aroused by forcing their world view on others.

[Turtleluv6]

Well when he stated a male being chased by a donkey I believe that is an animal. His website was open for public access until he requested the investigation then it became private. He needs to be removed and an investigation needs to be done from his place of employment to see how many times he accessed his personal accounts. If this action was done his career should be at stake.

[Turtleluv6]

Kozinski acknowledged posting sexual content on his website. 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 defended some of the adult content as "funny" but conceded that other postings were inappropriate.

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.

[deepintheheartoftejas]

Yes exactly! If you bar any judge that's ever looked at or had porn on their personal, non-work computers, then you're going to probably get someone more biased, not less, someone so puritanical they have an enormous bias against anything they consider smutty.

[Desiderata]

That was Larry Craig who soliticited sex in a public restroom, not the late Henry Hyde.

[jemeagirl]

Peter,

I know what you mean. I live in San Francisco where I am an attorney. The Court of Appeals 9th Circuit seats here. I personally know Justice Kozinski.

When I was in law school, my class toured the 9th Cir and we sat through a whole morning of appearances and Justice Kozinski talked to my class at the end of the session, we had the opportunity to ask him questions, and of course I have read and studied a lot of his opinions.

It would be sad if this smear brings him down. He is not a right wing Justice. I give you that he was appointed by Regan. However, he is also the one who said that it would be nice to show our democracy by being an independent society where a president who appoints you does not "own" you. That is the reason why he has not made it to the Supreme Court. The Rep think he is too liberal for them.
Extremely brillant . I witnessed him that day grilling a prosecutor who was trying to pass through him an incident date that would have made the defendant to be tried as an adult.