Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Devil in Judge Kozinski
Judge Alex Kozinski's porn stash turns out to be...not much of a porn stash. The conservative blogger Patterico has uncovered the material in question. (It was sent to him by the same person who tipped off the L.A. Times: Cyrus Sanai, a lawyer with a grudge against the judge.) It seems Kozinski has been accumulating viral Internet humor, some of it X-rated but none of it any less mainstream than a Farrelly Brothers movie. The Times' descriptions of the material were rather misleading: The "slide show striptease featuring a transsexual," for example, turns out to be a quiz where you guess whether you're looking at a natural woman. In the words of Wonkette, this is "the sort of naughtiness you'd find in the dirty birthday cards section at Spencer Gifts."
Nonetheless, we're still hearing calls for Kozinski to recuse himself from the obscenity case he's about to oversee. I hope he stands his ground. There has been no shortage of free-speech trials in which the presiding judges had a moral objection to essentially innocuous material. I don't see any reason why such a case shouldn't be heard by a jurist with a history of tolerance.
Elsewhere in Reason: We interviewed Kozinski back in 2006. The topic of tranny quizzes did not come up.
Nobby|6.13.08 @ 10:28AM|#
He had the chance to throw out the charges completely and should have. So much for "tolerance".
|6.13.08 @ 10:31AM|#
The witch hunt has begun. The mob is gathering and will soon be
howling with (ginned up) outrage, lighting their torches, and
pulling their pitchforks from out of the barn. I'm afraid reason
(or Reason) can't save the judge now. Just ask Bork* or
Ginsburg.
*Yes, Bork is an ass. But that doesn't change the fact that he was
brought down with demagoguery, not rational discourse.
|6.13.08 @ 10:31AM|#
I totally read "porn stash" as "porn 'stache" and, as a result, was really confused by the rest of the post. After looking up a picture of him, I'm thinking a porn 'stache couldn't hurt.
|6.13.08 @ 10:32AM|#
Isn't a puritanical judge just as biased as a horn dog? Isn't
every single person biased to the degree they have an
opinion on what constitutes pornography?
This truly is an idiotic request by the Kozinski objectors.
|6.13.08 @ 10:37AM|#
The topic of tranny quizes did not come up.
Sounds like some pretty shoddy journalism to me.
Episiarch|6.13.08 @ 10:47AM|#
Considering that most guys (including guys who complain the loudest about porn) have sizable porn stashes on their computers with stuff a hell of a lot worse than this, this is all idiotic. What would some a2m, golden showers, or fisting have caused? Especially since those aren't even rare or unusual?
|6.13.08 @ 10:47AM|#
Wouldn't his ownership of a porn stash make him knowledgeable in what "community standards" are? Who doesn't have a porn stash?
|6.13.08 @ 10:52AM|#
From Patterico
As to the question of whether the man on the left is using a real child to simulate fellatio by a young boy on a Catholic priest, I have no idea.
Are you kidding me? It's so obviously a ragdoll it's not even
funny. Patterico is pretty intellectually dishonest with that
comment.
|6.13.08 @ 10:53AM|#
We interviewed Kozinski back in 2006. The topic of tranny
quizes did not come up.
That's just sloppy journalism. ;-)
Episiarch|6.13.08 @ 10:54AM|#
Patterico is pretty intellectually dishonest
You can just stop right there.
Elemenope|6.13.08 @ 10:55AM|#
Wouldn't his ownership of a porn stash make him
knowledgeable in what "community standards" are?
Full of win.
He had the chance to throw out the charges completely and
should have. So much for "tolerance".
Are you still on this fucking horn? Give it a rest; you are not
privy to the briefs, not privy to the facts, and not privy to the
arguments. Who the hell are you to tell which case should or should
not be dismissed as a matter of law?
|6.13.08 @ 11:03AM|#
heh heh heh. Porn 'stache.
Oddly similar to cop 'staches. Not sure what that means.
|6.13.08 @ 11:14AM|#
He had the chance to throw out the charges completely and
should have. So much for "tolerance".
Actually, if he was really against the charges being brought, he
would hear the case, and write a very strong opinion for the
defendent on first amendment grounds. An opinion so well structured
that it would be hard to overturn on appeal. That would make it
hard for prosecutors to bring actions like this in the
future.
I think more attention should be brought on the person who has been
shopping this around for months, and his motivations.
T|6.13.08 @ 11:14AM|#
Wow. Patterico's commenters are a scary bunch, but
informative.
Apparently, you should be thrown in jail and a mental institution
for the crap that floats through everybody's email inbox. Plus, if
you watch porn, you suck in bed.
This is why I can't stand the majority of the GOP . They start off
surface rational on some topics, but sooner or later they veer
straight off into demented crazy land.
|6.13.08 @ 11:30AM|#
He had the chance to throw out the charges completely and
should have. So much for "tolerance".
Ten buck says Nobby likes to accuse judges of "judicial activism"
for overturning laws they don't like.
Kozinski is serving as a trial court judge. His job is to apply the
law as written, not throw out those laws he personally
opposes.
That, my friend, is the for the appellate courts. ;-)
Elemenope|6.13.08 @ 11:35AM|#
Ten bucks says Nobby likes to accuse judges of "judicial
activism" for overturning laws they don't like.
Ten bucks says Nobby is a disgruntled house elf.
|6.13.08 @ 11:52AM|#
Joe and Elemenope-
I have not read the briefs nor have I heard the arguments from
counsel; however, that should not disqualify me or Nobby from
commenting on the case.
We can start with the obvious: the first amendment states, in part,
that "Congress shall make no law....." We know that the language is
in absolute terms. The framers did not provide for any exceptions.
They thought about it but concluded that it was far more important
to have an absolute standard. They were not persuaded by arguments
that some speech could be dangerous or harmful. They decided that
having no impediments to free speech, as a value, was superior to
having some "reasonable" restraints on free speech.
The framers were well aware of man's tendency to seek power and to
control others. That is one reason, incidentally, that they were
dead set against democracy and having a standing military. They
knew that there would be those that would seek to silence others
and that those who would be demanding the silencing would come up
with all sorts of totalitarian drivel to justify it-like, oh the
children will be harmed if they see mommy having intercourse with a
mule or this group can't be allowed to speak because they will
incite others to revolt.
Justice Black was a libertarian on first amendment issues. Read his
dissents on first amendment cases. He often criticized judges for
treating absolute constitutional commands as "admonitions." He also
frequently criticized the courts for formulating balancing tests
when it came to constitutional rights.
Therefore, to the extent that the charges in this obscenity case
allege that the filmaker photographed/filmed people doing kinky
things, including having sex with animals, and distributed the
film, then Nobby is absolutely right.
No, Joe, a trial court judge does have the power to throw out a
case and the law upon which the charges are based. If a judge
declares a law that is repugnant to the constitution-HURRAY. That
is what they are supposed to do.
|6.13.08 @ 11:58AM|#
No, l.m., you are factually incorrect. That is not what trial courts are for. Trial court judges do have the authority to throw out cases on the grounds that the law itself is unconstitutional. That requires the defendant to appeal his conviction on those grounds.
|6.13.08 @ 11:59AM|#
Per yesterday's Gitmo decision, I hope we can all agree that
Scalia is hardly an originalist. He's a phony. Read his
dissent.
What you will not find in his opinion are the framer's concerns
about having a standing military and all of the corruption and
mischief that goes with having a standing military. You won't find
any originalist thought in Scalia's dissent relative to the
framer's fear that the executive would make war and come up with
all sorts of bolshevik baloney to justify war like a handful of
arabians with box cutters slammed planes into skyscrapers.
|6.13.08 @ 11:59AM|#
After watching the video the LA Times described as a half-naked man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal, I can only conclude the writer is extemely untalented or was deliberately and falsely trying to imply that the judge was into animal porn.
Steve Verdon|6.13.08 @ 12:03PM|#
Overall I find Patterico to be rather petty. I was laughing when
he expressed astonishment over the pictures of naked women on all
fours painted like cows. He found this rather shocking or
disturbing or something. You'd think he just discovered the
internets the day before or something.
Patterico's commenters are a scary bunch, but informative.
Most of them are knee-jerk social conservatives who probably
haven't seen a member of the opposite sex naked.
|6.13.08 @ 12:04PM|#
Joe- You are wrong and you contradicted yourself in your last
post. If the judge throws out the case, either becasue defense
counsel moved to dismiss the case or the judge does it sua sponte,
the defendant does not appeal the matter. Joe, if the judge throws
out the case, why would the defendant appeal? It would be the
prosecution that appeals.
In my opinion, the state should not have the right to appeal a
trial court's dismissal of a criminal indictment, nor should the
state have the right to appeal the granting of a suppression
motion.
Elemenope|6.13.08 @ 12:31PM|#
Joe- You are wrong and you contradicted yourself in your
last post.
He (I think accidentally) left out an all-important "not" between
"do" and "have authority".
And he's somewhat right. A trial judge does have the authority to
apply the law as written, which includes of course the
Constitution; the handy dandy supremacy clause ensures (in theory)
that a reading of the law where a portion conflicts with the
constitution would read the constitution as supreme. However, we
expect judges to be somewhat circumspect and slow-to-draw with this
power.
In any case, because *binding precedent* only emanates from
appellate courts, by tossing a shitty 1st Amendment case, Kozinski
would be doing a disservice to 1st Amendment law.
p.s. I never meant to imply that people so (partially-) informed
could not comment on a case. Just that it was awfully silly to full
throatedly argue for a particular and radical action like
dismissing a case w/ prejudice without having all the relevant
facts/briefs/etc..
|6.13.08 @ 12:37PM|#
"the pictures of naked women on all fours painted like cows" Is
that what you call beastiality? Or cowgirls?
"He found this rather shocking or disturbing or something"
Arousing??? Cause I sure find naked women on all fours arousing...
You can have my naked cowgirls when you pry them out of my hot,
sweaty, paws.
|6.13.08 @ 12:48PM|#
dan k writes:
"You can have my naked cowgirls when you pry them out of my hot,
sweaty, paws."
Um dan, that's not a cowgirl, no matter what Barbie clothes you've
thrust upon it ;)
Jake
|6.13.08 @ 12:55PM|#
Whether you agree with his choice of "stache" material, you
gotta give Judge Kozinski credit for being a relatively honest
man....for a lawyer.
From the LATimes:
Alex Kozinski calls for investigation into his porn postings
Alex Kozinski, 57, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, asked a court ethics panel to initiate the proceedings after The Times reported Wednesday that he posted lewd photos and videos on his personal website.
...
"I will cooperate fully in any investigation," Kozinski said in a statement.
Kozinski suspended until Monday the obscenity trial of a Hollywood adult filmmaker after the prosecutor requested time to explore "a potential conflict of interest concerning the court having a . . . sexually explicit website with similar material to what is on trial here."
Although Kozinski requested an investigation, it's unclear what, if any, discipline he could face. Circuit judges are appointed for life and can only be fired by Congress, though they can be censured by fellow jurists.
|6.13.08 @ 12:55PM|#
Elemenope-
I agree that there is significant legal weight behind the notion
that trial judges should be circumspect about tossing a statute
that conflicts with the constitution. I think that this is contrary
to the founders' intentions.
Are we to give more weight to a statute or the fundamental law?
Libertarians should not consider themselves fans of legal
posivitism. Justices like Cardozo and Holmes, along with the
majority of the justices after the court packing threat, were/are
legal positivists. Many in the founding generation considered it
the duty of a judge to void legislative enactments if those laws
conflicted with fundamental law. The majority of the framers,
certainly not all, were adherents of natural rights philosophy. The
natural rights philosophy held that our rights are god-given, they
inhere as part of our very being. Natural rights adherents did not
favor welfare rights-but individual rights to keep the fruits of
one's labor, to acquire property, enjoy it and exclude others from
it, to express oneself as one sees fit, no prior restraint on
speech, the right to defend oneself, etc.
This is another way of illustrating what a phony scalia is. He
dissented in Lawrence v. Texas. He was all apoplectic about the
blow to democracy and to the democratic process. To be sure, he
thought that the federal courts should not have touched the case.
However, that is a red herring-as the constitution requires that
all of the states have a republican form of government where the
rights of individuals are not up for grabs.
|6.13.08 @ 12:55PM|#
Doh! That should have read "trial courts do NOT have the
authority..."
Sorry for the confusion.
Patterico|6.13.08 @ 12:58PM|#
"Overall I find Patterico to be rather petty. I was laughing
when he expressed astonishment over the pictures of naked women on
all fours painted like cows."
Overall you distort the facts every time you see my name on the
Internet. There is nothing I wrote that specifically expresses
astonishment at *those pictures*, and for you to say so is the
typical Steve Verdon bullshit that I have come to expect as
standard fare from you.
In order to warn people that the pictures were not safe for work, I
said that the pictures to follow were "disturbing and/or
pornographic images." That set of pictures included a picture of
someone who may be a teenager fellating himself, with his erect
penis fully visible and in his mouth. Plenty of people would find
that disturbing. The women painted as cows, by contrast, are merely
pornographic (and in the eyes of some, including the judge,
degrading) but not "disturbing."
For you to pretend that I expressed "astonishment" at the cow
pictures has no basis in fact.
I'll admit that when I first saw the images with my own eyes, I was
shocked by some of them -- in particular the ones making light of
children giving oral sex, or depicting a young man/teenager
fellating himself. And I'll remind people that this doesn't
constitute the entirety of Kozinski's collection, by a longshot.
It's only a few images that the tipster e-mailed to me.
But there appears to be a fairly consistent pattern as to most of
the images: that when people view the images themselves, which are
often offered in a humorous context, they are not as offended as
they expected to be from a text description. I think that's a
useful thing to know. In fact, I have had at least one person who
knows Kozinski thank me for posting the images.
Similarly, I'm working to track down the answer to whether the
video of a half-dressed man "cavorting" (L.A. Times's description)
with an aroused barnyard animal is really just that silly viral
video of the man defecating and then running around while being
chased by a donkey with an erection. (This video wasn't on the site
when the tipster did his download; the L.A. Times found it
later.)
If so, the use of the word "cavorting" by the LAT is highly
misleading, as it is suggestive of bestiality (which is also a
subject of the trial Kozinski is overseeing), whereas the actual
video is just a humorous (to many) video of a guy running away from
a donkey with a hard-on.
And I wonder if the same might be true of the material in the trial
that Kozinski is overseeing. Maybe the jury doesn't find it
actually as repulsive as one might think from the text
descriptions. Also, repeated viewings might make them less
offended.
In any event, I am libertarian on this issue and find obscenity
trials to be a waste of taxpayer money. As long as nobody is being
harmed during the filming, I think such trials are a diversion of
critical law enforcement resources from things I thought were more
important, like chasing terrorists.
|6.13.08 @ 12:58PM|#
liberty mike, please name for us a case in which the trial court
judge dismissed the charges on the grounds that the law itself -
not its application, but the law itself - was
unconstitutional.
One. From the entire history of American law.
|6.13.08 @ 1:04PM|#
Shouldn't individuals be free from the torment of political prosecutions? Let's face it, this obscenity case is a political prosecution. If I were the trial judge, I would dismiss the case. I would also sanction the prosecutor for filing such frivolous charges and wasting the resources of the taxpayers.
|6.13.08 @ 1:13PM|#
Wingnutz-you asked for it.
Let'sstart with 1657 in Massachusetts. A magistrate voided a tax
imposed by the twon of Ipswich as against the fundamental law as
the purpose of the tax was to provide a home to a local minister. 2
Hutchinson Papers, 1-25 (Prince Soc. Pubs. 1865)
Elemenope|6.13.08 @ 1:17PM|#
Shouldn't individuals be free from the torment of political
prosecutions? Let's face it, this obscenity case is a political
prosecution.
Of course. However, individuals who are criminals should be
prosecutable. If it were so easy to tell the difference in all
cases, we wouldn't need a justice system, now, would we? :)
The system has many safeguards, of which the power to dismiss is
only one (and an indelicate cudgel, at that). I would much prefer,
for the long-term, a friendly precedent setting case that makes it
more difficult to bring future actions of this nature. Sure, it
sucks for the poor sap who attracted the attention/ire of the
prosecutor, but them's the breaks in an imperfect world.
|6.13.08 @ 1:23PM|#
More?
How about the case of Trevett v Weeden. This was a case from Rhode
Island in 1786. The statute at issue required all merchants in
Rhode Island to accept paper money and that prosecutions for
violations of this statute were to be tried by special courts
sitting without juries.
The trial court, sitting in the city by the sea, the place where
independence was declared by the state of rhode island on may 4,
1776, Newport, decalred the law unconstitutional. Please se Suzanna
Sherry, The Founders Unwritten Constitution, University of Chicago
Law review (Fall 1987).
Incidentally, the defendant's attorney, James Varnum, argued that
the statute was void as against the fundamental law and he wrote a
pamphlet about the case and fundamental law that he sold in
Philadelphia during the summer of 1787.
|6.13.08 @ 1:32PM|#
I can't help but notice the dates. I didn't realize trial courts
used to rule on the constitutionality of laws.
I suppose the court system could bring back the practice. That
would be pretty radical, though. Overturning the acts of the
legislature is a weighty business, and should probably be reserved
for higher courts.
Elemenope|6.13.08 @ 1:36PM|#
The trial court, sitting in the city by the sea, the place
where independence was declared by the state of rhode
island...
HEY! We may be small, but we are *not* lowercased!
Jesse Walker|6.13.08 @ 1:53PM|#
I'll remind people that this doesn't constitute the entirety
of Kozinski's collection, by a longshot. It's only a few images
that the tipster e-mailed to me.
But you would expect him to send you the worst he has, wouldn't
you? Setting aside the material that was too big to email (which
from his description sounded like more of the same).
|6.13.08 @ 1:53PM|#
Wingnutz-
Just within the last few years we have seen federal district courts
(trial courts) invalidate parts of the Patriot(not) Act and other
post 9/11 legislation. One of those cases was from one of the
federal districts in Michigan.
|6.13.08 @ 2:01PM|#
Elemenope-
Can't beat LITTLE RHODY. I am sure that most americans do not know
that Rhode Island declared independence from the British Empire a
full 2 months before the colonies, as a whole, did.
On a separate note, Newport, Rhode Island is a pretty unique
animal(don't worry petaphiles, not that kind of animal). I do not
think there is any place else in the country that has all of the
historical architectural designs/styles of buildings, and in the
numbers,
that Newport has. Including New York, Boston, Philly.
|6.13.08 @ 2:12PM|#
Trial judges can indeed rule on the constitutionality of criminal statutes in the ordinary case. Here, however, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the federal obscenity statutes, and the trial bench is bound by those rulings.
|6.13.08 @ 2:14PM|#
Joe-1:32 p.m.
Why? Democracy, at bottom, is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what is
for lunch. Why should we accord so much weight to a legislative
enactment? Is not the vindication of an individual right a greater
value than worshiping a bill passed by the legislature?
Joe, are you not a self described liberal democrat? I will take you
at your word-you have probably noticed that I do not take kindly to
the "oh he must be a troll" culture on this blog. Thus, this
philosophy, i.e.,judges using the fundamental law to void
legislative enactments. can cut both ways for you. You would be
dead set against it, I'm assuming, when it comes to the Lochner
type of case. But, this philosophy would serve your viewpoint in
cases like Brown v Board of Education or Giddeon V. wainright or
Lawrence v Texas.
|6.13.08 @ 2:16PM|#
Why does that keep happening?
Not to worry, joe. When we see "Wingnutz", we'll always think
"joe".
|6.13.08 @ 2:25PM|#
Joe-
Are you trying to make me look bad? Please don't tell me that you
are also wingnutz.
Even if Joe is both-I stand by my prior post about the culture here
on this blog/board. Folks are so quick to cry "troll"-just don't
get it.
|6.13.08 @ 2:29PM|#
John In Nashville-
I agree with your post except there is nothing stopping a federal
district court judge from invalidating the statute as he/she takes
an oath to uphold the constitution-not some distorted
interpretation thereof.
Patterico|6.13.08 @ 2:30PM|#
Yes, I would expect that he sent me the worst of what he was able to e-mail me. Although I had moe specifically asked for the stuff mentioned in the article -- but I assume that's the worst stuff.
|6.13.08 @ 2:36PM|#
John in Nashville-
Congress shall not means just that. So, if I am the federal judge,
I would let that be my guide-not some intellectually lame
justification for disregarding what the framers ordained in
absolute terms.
The numbers of lawyers are legion who buy the disguised defecation
that those who insist upon strict adherence to the absolutist
language of the framers are simpletons incapable of deeper thought
or that they do not understand the nuances of the situation. In
reality, that thinking is the intellectually flaccid point of view.
The people who insist that everything is grey-that everything is
relative, in my opinion, usually are not great thinkers.
Elemenope|6.13.08 @ 2:45PM|#
On a separate note, Newport, Rhode Island is a pretty unique
animal(don't worry petaphiles, not that kind of animal). I do not
think there is any place else in the country that has all of the
historical architectural designs/styles of buildings, and in the
numbers,
that Newport has. Including New York, Boston, Philly.
Providence is no slouch in this respect, either. I grew up five
miles from the oldest enclosed mall (yay capitalism!) in the
world.
Episiarch|6.13.08 @ 2:55PM|#
Providence is no slouch in this respect, either. I grew up
five miles from the oldest enclosed mall (yay capitalism!) in the
world.
Rhode Island dork. We in Connecicut laugh at your puny state.
Off topic, related to you being from RI: Your initials don't happen
to be H.C., do they?
|6.13.08 @ 3:04PM|#
The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
Now folks know the full name of Little Rhody.
|6.13.08 @ 3:09PM|#
H.C. happen to be the initials to a very rare specimen indeed-a
law enforcement officer who is a great guy. H.C. was the sheriff of
Newport County for many years.
In 1979, he was embroiled in a nationwide controversy. He purchased
some very nice real estate near the Ocean Drive. The edifice was a
mansion that had been divided into separate apartments. One of the
tenants was none other than one Louise VANDERBILT. The sheriff
raised the rents by 900 per cent and Louise Vanderbilt objected and
joined the local tenants organization. She actually joined the
tenants demonstrating out in front of Newport City Hall.
|6.13.08 @ 3:19PM|#
Re: Patterico...
Beware of any sentence that start with: "I'm a libertarian,
but..."
Fima Fimovich|6.13.08 @ 3:41PM|#
I think we have the same past with judge
I live in Minneapolis, MN
I came to US as political refugee on human rights violations in
former USSR
I am russian jew, and I got a lot of discrimination in USSR
My parents are Holocaust survivors.
But I got the worst thing in USA, never possible in communist
country.
I was set up with my computer, convicted as a s..x offender for
computer p..rn.
I would like to send you some links to publications about my
criminal
case. I was forced to confess to the
possession of internet digital pictures of p..rn in deleted
clusters
of my computer hard drive. My browser was hijacked while I
was
browsing the web. I was redirected to illegal sites against my
will.
Some illegal pictures were found on my hard drive, recovering
in
unallocated clusters, without dates of file
creation/download.
I do not know how courts can widely press these charges on people
to
convict them, while the whole Internet is a mess.
I was fired from many jobs, and I am out of job for 5 years.
Also police watch me all the time naming me a predator,
I am not a predator, I came here in hope to escape human rights
violations,
but I got copletely terrible violations by government. All of
this
looks like Nazi Germany
Most recent publication in ZDnet
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=824
You can find all links to publications about my case here
http://estrinyefim.newsvine.com/_news/2007/06/23/798199-internet-porn-hysteria
Steve Verdon|6.13.08 @ 4:27PM|#
Overall you distort the facts every time you see my name on the Internet. There is nothing I wrote that specifically expresses astonishment at *those pictures*, and for you to say so is the typical Steve Verdon bullshit that I have come to expect as standard fare from you.
And true to form there he is.
Nevermind that he was completely unaware of the pictures of women
painted as cows, and over the course of several updates referenced
those images alone with comments like, "...more widespread than I
thought..."
Whatever.
That set of pictures included a picture of someone who may be a teenager fellating himself, with his erect penis fully visible and in his mouth. Plenty of people would find that disturbing.
Only if it is Ron Jeremy.
I'll admit that when I first saw the images with my own eyes, I was shocked by some of them -- in particular the ones making light of children giving oral sex...
So, no basis in fact, but its still true. Whatever.
Oh, and the children having oral sex are in the context of catholic priests...given the recent events I don't think it is as bad as your comment makes it.
As long as nobody is being harmed during the filming, I think such trials are a diversion of critical law enforcement resources from things I thought were more important, like chasing terrorists.
Well, I do agree with this. The Right's fascination with "mainstream" porn is just amazing to me, especially when they get up there and bloviate about terrorist. Right, terrorist...which is why you are going after mainstream pornographers. GMAFB.
Patterico|6.13.08 @ 4:52PM|#
"So, no basis in fact, but its still true. Whatever."
No. So, no basis in fact, but its still a typical Steve Verdon lie.
We were talking about the pictures of women as cows. I never
expressed any shock at that as you falsely implied.
"'ll admit that when I first saw the images with my own eyes, I was
shocked by some of them -- in particular the ones making light of
children giving oral sex..."
What comes after the ellipsis, you deceptive twit? A reference to a
picture of a young man, possibly under age, sitting in a chair,
sucking on his own visible erect penis. Your little ellipsis
eliminates the reference to that and makes it sound like I was
speaking only of the priest images when I said I was shocked.
Plenty of people have expressed shock at that. For me to say it
shocked me is not an admission that I was "shocked" by the pictures
of cows as women, which you continue to falsely maintain.
You're one of the most consistently dishonest people I have ever
encountered on these here Internets.
|6.13.08 @ 8:21PM|#
liberty mike,
Sorry 'bout that.
On the question you raised - why is two wolves deciding what's for
dinner inherently better than one really educated wolf?
I'm the one arguing for balance between equal branches here. I
never wrote a word about legislative supremacy, just noted that no
branch - in this case, the courts - should run willy-nilly over the
others.
You talk about how much more important "fundamental rights" are
than policy. I'm sorry, but when we're talking about process, you
don't get to look at outcomes and proclaim that whatever gets the
results you like in the most recent case is the best process. I
don't trust judicial supremacy unchecked by deference to the other
branches any more than I trust executive supremacy, and neither did
the founders, who struck a very delicate balance.
Also, got a link on the Michigan case you mentioned? I don't recall
the federal district courts overturning the law, just its
application in specific cases.
x|6.14.08 @ 5:39PM|#
um, do I have my dates wrong? The constitution wasn't finished until the fall of 1787 and didn't go into effect until 1789, right? What are those cases examples of again?
|6.14.08 @ 6:30PM|#
I'm a relatively new resident of the State of Rhode Island and
Providence Plantations (six years).
Some of you may think we're cute, because we're diminutive [insert
bad-taste midget joke here].
But what we are, based on the relative sizes of, say, Texas and
Louisiana, is the most corrupt state, per capita, in the
country.
|6.15.08 @ 4:28PM|#
What seems clear is the LA Times reporter was blatantly
dishonest in his descriptions of the material in question. He
purposely used the most imflammatory language possible and ripped
away context that would back up what Kozinski was saying about the
humor. It was one of the most dishonest hit pieces I have read in a
very long time.
I don't know this Patterico character and his fights with others --
nor do I care to. But it seems to me that in defending himself he
convicts himself. He is horrified that one of the joke pieces
"included a picture of someone who may be a teenager fellating
himself, with his erect penis fully visible and in his mouth."
Actually if it were in his mouth it would be partly visible not
"fully" visible but lets not quibble. Accuracy and conservatives
don't even live on the same street.
I am amused that he "was shocked" by the photos "making light of
children givng oral sex and depicting a young man/teenager
fellating himself." Good lord it is easy to shock conservatives ---
fun too. The one photo was of a Halloween costume of someone
dressed as a priest with a rag doll tied to the front of the
trousers so it appeared to be having oral sex. I am not sure that
was "making light of children giving oral sex" but it sure as hell
made light of the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church. And considering
that it was obviously and clearly not a child, but a doll, his
shock is well misplaced. I am perplexed by those shocked by making
fun of the church's hypocrisy but apparently not shocked by the
church's actual position.
Twice Mr. Patterico refers to the self-fellatio photo as possible
being a "teenager" and puts it in the same category as "making
light of children giving oral sex". But this raises a question? If
Patterico really thought that the young man was a "teenager" and
possibly underage, as he implies, they why did he run the photo and
risk violating child porn laws? Running the photo implies he is
either very stupid and risking prosecution, or that he didn't
believe the young man was underage. But if he didn't believe the
young man was underage then precisely why the shock?
Patterico|6.15.08 @ 6:18PM|#
It's a good question. I can't tell whether the young man is
underage. Since I can't -- and since I have a news interest in
publishing it -- I think I'm safe.
I can be shocked and not think that child porn laws were violated.
I don't think Judge Kozinski violated those laws either.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245