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.

Comments

[Nobby]

He had the chance to throw out the charges completely and should have. So much for "tolerance".

[Professor Chaos]

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.

[ClubMedSux]

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.

[MP]

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.

[Reformed Republican]

The problem is not that he has a bias, it is that he has the WRONG bias.

[SugarFree]

The topic of tranny quizes did not come up.

Sounds like some pretty shoddy journalism to me.

[Episiarch]

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?

[Mo]

Wouldn't his ownership of a porn stash make him knowledgeable in what "community standards" are? Who doesn't have a porn stash?

[Mo]

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.

[J sub D]

We interviewed Kozinski back in 2006. The topic of tranny quizes did not come up.

That's just sloppy journalism. 😉

[Episiarch]

Patterico is pretty intellectually dishonest

You can just stop right there.

[J sub D]

Damn you, SugarFree. Damn you to hell!

[Elemenope]

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?

[joe]

heh heh heh. Porn 'stache.

Oddly similar to cop 'staches. Not sure what that means.

[quigly]

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]

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.

[joe]

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]

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.

[liberty mike]

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.

[joe]

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.

[liberty mike]

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.

[Charles Oliver]

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]

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.

[liberty mike]

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]

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..

[dan k]

"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.

[JMR]

I'm with ya all the way on the cowgirls.
JMR

[Jake]

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

[Kwix]

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.

[liberty mike]

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.

[Wingnutz]

Doh! That should have read "trial courts do NOT have the authority..."

Sorry for the confusion.

[joe]

And THAT should have read "joe."

[Patterico]

"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.

[Wingnutz]

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.

[joe]

Why does that keep happening?

[Elemenope]

Gotcha covered, Joe. 🙂

[liberty mike]

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.

[liberty mike]

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]

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.

[liberty mike]

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.

[joe]

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]

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]

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).

[liberty mike]

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.

[liberty mike]

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.

[John in Nashville]

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.

[liberty mike]

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.

[R C Dean]

Why does that keep happening?

Not to worry, joe. When we see "Wingnutz", we'll always think "joe".

[liberty mike]

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.

[liberty mike]

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]

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.

[liberty mike]

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]

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]

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?

[liberty mike]

The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.

Now folks know the full name of Little Rhody.

[liberty mike]

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.

[Jim Walsh]

Re: Patterico...

Beware of any sentence that start with: "I'm a libertarian, but..."

[Fima Fimovich]

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]

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]

"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.

[Patterico]

women as cows

[joe]

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]

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?

[efgoldman]

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.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Good point, x.

[hlm]

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]

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.