AT&T Tech Support 360File under category of: 'Oh My Gawd!!!!'
The Los Angeles Times is reporting that Alex Kozinski posted sexually explicit photos and videos on his private Web site. Raunchy, but hardly exceptional except that we're talking about the chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and one who is presiding over an obscenity trial.
Judge Alex Kozinski
(Credit: Alex Kozinski)According to the newspaper, he acknowledged posting the materials, "which included 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. Some of the material was inappropriate, he conceded, although he defended other sexually explicit content as 'funny.'"
Kozinski also told the L.A. Times that he thought the site was for private storage and was unaware the public might be able to view the images. Unfortunately, the site is no longer publicly viewable but here's the paper's description:
The sexually explicit material on Kozinski's site earlier this week was extensive, including images of masturbation, public sex and contortionist sex. There was a slide show striptease featuring a transsexual, and a folder that contained a series of photos of women's crotches as seen through snug fitting clothing or underwear. There were also themes of defecation and urination, though they are not presented in a sexual context.
Appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan in 1985, Kozinski became chief judge of the 9th Circuit in 2007. Sideline interests aside, Kozinski has a reputation for being an excellent jurist. Kozinski, who immigrated to the United States with his parents in 1962 when he was 12, graduated first in his class from UCLA. In a recent profile, California Lawyer headlined its piece, "Just Being Kozinski: The Ninth Circuit's new chief judge is brilliant, charming - and provocative. But does he have the right temperament for the job?"
I'm not qualified to answer. But clearly, we're not talking about the second coming of Antonin Scalia. Nobody will argue that Kozinski isn't more colorful than the run-of-the-mill magistrate. Apropos, Slate reprinted excerpts from Kozinski's 1996 diary. Check it out.
Our host seems to have left nothing to chance. The exercise room, behind a glass panel, has been turned into a bondage peep show. Dancers undulate in cages, on raised stands, and on a Plexiglas platform in the middle of the pool. A magician in a bathrobe adorned with the moon and stars performs card tricks. A masseuse, caricaturists, and a body painter ply their trades.
For all this, the party is not much different from a junior-high sock hop. People eye each other nervously while snatching finger food. Every one seems to be waiting for something to happen.
As midnight approaches the place becomes so packed--there are now perhaps 700 bodies in the living room and on the pool decks--that it's difficult to move. The later arrivals display slightly more provocative costumes. One fellow walks in supporting a clip-on cup and precious little else. Reminds me of a nightmare I've had where I go to a party but forget to dress. One lady appears in a black leather bondage outfit; handcuffs hang from her belt and she carries a coiled whip. More lingerie than a Victoria's Secret catalogue. It dawns on me that I'm at a pajama costume party, sort of a sleepover for adults, but with no sleeping allowed.
Charles is an executive editor with CNET News. He has covered technology and business for more than 25 years. A graduate of Queens College and Columbia University, Cooper began his career in journalism at the Associated Press before moving to technology coverage. Before joining CNET News, he worked at Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. He received the Excellence in Journalism award from the Northern California branch of the Society for Professional Journalists for column writing. In addition to his blogging and podcast appearances, he is a co-host of the CNET News Daily Debrief. E-mail Charlie.
- Topics:
-
Technology,
-
Business currents
- Tags:
-
Alex Kozinski,
-
Web pornography
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
This just shows that you can never assume your web pages are private -- if you put it on a web page, you better be prepared for someone else to see it.
for instance, my friend (seriously, it's not me!) has observed that young teenagers become desensitized to soft-core porn progressively during their imprinting age. it's not a difficult phenomenon to understand -- consider the "sensitivity" of the average victorian male getting aroused by seeing a woman's ankle under her heavy dress.
what i guess i'm saying is that perhaps a level of censorship of porn and society frowning on it is a necessary balance against the "creeping" of porn appetite into stronger and stronger stuff.
Andrew
You could make that argument, but we can't censor it anyway. Not with the technology we have now. It isn't going to happen. To drag it into court is simply wrong because it is subjective. We're already on that spiral of not being able to do anything because everything offends someone. The problem has always been who decides? We used to use religion and say well God decides. Now we're not doing that anymore and we have hit a wall. Now who decides? Another problem is when they say, well maybe they're right because someone might go out and get harder porn. Now we're right back to drawing a line between good porn and bad porn. Most people don't realize it when they say it, but what they're really saying is we're going to ban hardcore porn so people don't watch harder core porn. Well we could ban candy so people don't eat more candy too, but you need more of a reason than that. The reason? Well what if they become desensitized and go out and get harder porn? Now we have just tried to justify our actions in a circular manner that has no meaning whatsoever. That's why they used to put it on God see. Without religion it's all just moral relativism. There's nobody left with enough moral authority to say it's wrong. I say if you want to pursue anything legally it should be beastiality. Animals are not willing volunteers after all. Unfortunately that seems to be the least important issue to everyone else. Now when it comes to becoming desensitized I ask, is this is a bad thing or is it just normal? I use to play with action figures when I was a kid. Guess what? I grew up, and now they bore me. You can only do something so many times before it bores you. Does that mean you should never do it? Should you always be saving it for a rainy day? Now you can hold off the porn until someone is 20, 30, or 100. Eventually they'll see it, and eventually they'll get bored with it. Some guys will tell you they're bored with their wife. Does that mean they should of never had sex so they didn't get bored? It's just how life works. You grow up and move on. Just because I get tired of doing the same thing over and over doesn't mean there is anything wrong with me, but somehow when it comes to sex it's a different story? Except this is unique because I never met a straight guy that was tired of seeing naked women. Even in their nineties. The only problem is what if they get bored and go look for harder porn? Well now we're back in the circle again. Don't worry, eventually they'll get bored with that too. The only other argument is the video game argument. They'll say violent video games make you violent, and watching porn makes you a rapist. Except that's just not true. There are a lot of rapists out there, but not compared to the amount of people that watch porn. I would argue porn is a very bad method of turning someone into a rapist. However, if someone wants to make that argumet that's fine. Except could you all please take the violence and sex out of TV first. I find cable television very obscene.