Kozinski has his own porn storage site. Classic.

Wow. I thought at first that he was uploading material from his trial. Who knew Koz was into pubic shaving porn? Awesome.

Agree, Lat, you're missing how ridiculous this is. Here's the quote from the article:

One of the highest-ranking federal judges in the United States, who is currently presiding over an obscenity trial in Los Angeles, has maintained a publicly accessible website featuring sexually explicit photos and videos.

Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, acknowledged in an interview with The Times that he had posted 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."

Whoa WHOA WHOA, Lat! There are two completely independent stories contained in the links. One is interesting as a first amendment story and the other is completely CRAZY! Kozinski with crazy porn on his computer that was publicly available???

Quotes from the article:

Kozinski said he would delete some material from his site, including the photo depicting women as cows, which he said was "degrading . . . and just gross." He also said he planned to get rid of a graphic step-by-step pictorial in which a woman is seen shaving her pubic hair.

....

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.

...

Before the site was taken down, visitors to http://alex.kozinski.com were greeted with the message: "Ain't nothin' here. Y'all best be movin' on, compadre."

Only those who knew to type in the name of a subdirectory could see the content on the site, which also included some of Kozinski's essays and legal writings as well as music files and personal photos.

The judge said he began saving the sexually explicit materials and other items of interest years ago.

"People send me stuff like this all the time," he said.

He keeps the things he finds interesting or funny with the thought that he might later pass them on to friends, he said.

************************

wow. he thought step-by-step shaving & crotch-shot photos were "funny," as were photos of naked women painted like cows. just hilarious.

this really does deserve its own post, Lat, even if AK was an early pen pal who was nice to you.

Lat, Kozinski's porn site has nothing to do with the trial. it's his own porn. its his own site!!!! kozinski thinks it is "funny". Should have had its own headline, big boy.

Anyone know where these pictures might be available now?

Why is this not a "Judge of the Day" post?

When state judges shave themselves during trial, they're "icky state court judges," but when your superhottie friends runs his own porn cite, it's "awesome"

This post seems to be evolving (which is why some of the earlier comments no longer make sense).

Explosive story not because the dude has a porn collection, but because he felt the need to make it available over the web, even if he did think it was available only to his "friends"

And is he claiming this was art or freakshow stuff and not purient?

I agree with 2:27. Lat may be doing some lame AK-protecting here. Dude, this is most salacious legal gossip in weeks -- throw up the flashy siren! Don't bury this!

How ironic is Kozinski's words to the jurors, as reported in the third link, that he'll "be right there watching with you"?

I just bet he will be.

Freak.

Why should he recuse? What (male) judge DOESN'T watch porn?

There is no way a reporter just stumbled onto this website, someone, with the password, dropped a dime on the judge.

2:34: Because there's porn and then there's PORN. If as described, at least some of the stuff on his "friends only" website crossed the line.

how about a flaming flashing light post entitled LAT FRIEND AK HAS PUBLIC PORN SITE WITH SHAVING AND UPSKIRT PICS, THINKS THEY ARE "FUNNY"

Ah, memories:

http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2004/06/courthouse_foru.html

I dont think I've ever seen a picture of a naked woman painted to look like a cow? And what kind of cow are we talking about anyway? A black and white spotted cow or one of those brown Jersey cows? Thanks wikipedia!

I dont think I've ever seen a picture of a naked woman painted to look like a cow. And what kind of cow are we talking about anyway? A black and white spotted cow or one of those brown Jersey cows? Thanks wikipedia!

Some will write this off as yet another hypocritical conservative or hypocritical crusader, but I don't think that's true here. As far as I know he has always protected the very same conduct he's engaging in.

Some will write this off as yet another hypocritical conservative or hypocritical crusader, but I don't think that's true here. As far as I know he has always protected the very same conduct he's engaging in.

2:41--Despite having slobbering conservative fanboys, Kozinski himself gives more the impression of libertarianism. So this is pretty in character.

2:41: and that makes a difference, how?

Bullshit that it is a coincidence that the Chief Judge was assigned to this particular trial.

saying the stuff is legal is one thing. saying the content is "funny" is another. Nice that Lat is not playing this up - he would have crucified some others for the very same thing. so much for evenhandedness.

2:45(2)--Seriously. It's funny to air the dirty laundry of other people in the profession until suddenly it's one of Lat's favorites. Don't expect this post to be retitled "Judge of the Day" anytime soon.

Why doesn't the below have its own post?

"He also said he planned to get rid of a graphic step-by-step pictorial in which a woman is seen shaving her pubic hair."

"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."

I don't understand Gillers' point about AK's objectivity.

Wouldn't someone who doesn't like porn have a subjective stance as well?

I don't see any problem with Kozinski's porn stash. It all sounds funny and harmless. Get over it.

To Lat's credit, he has revised the post & is now, in fact, highlighting a bit more the weirdness of AK's behavior.

From reading the initial post, I just thought that AK accidentally posted online material from this upcoming trial he'll be overseeing. After I read the link, it became clear he was storing porn online on his own personal website. And that the porn he was storing was some *truly* weird shit. That he thought was "funny."

If I had an employment discrimination case based on gender before him, I think I'd move for his recusal. If he thinks it's funny to see women painted as cows on all fours, I bet he'd sympathize with that boss who just couldn't help himself joking about it being "nipply" in here or something.

Why is Kozinski's porn collection below the fold? Seriously Lat... Your credibility has taken a serious hit.

Back when I was on the 9th circuit, we all shared our fetish porn collections. It was no big deal.

How often do COA judges sit by designation? I know USDC judges sit on the COA with some frequency; just didn't realize it went the other way around....

Looks like the Koz is a porn fan in his own right. Check the WSJ law blog.

Folks, you're all missing the bigger issue here! What women still shave their pubic hair?? Who doesn't nair or wax in this day and age???

How did Kash get the black and white paint off when it was over?

Anyone who thinks his porn collection was "weird" or beyond the pale of "normal porn" has lived a very sheltered life.

Folks, you're all missing the bigger issue here! What women still shave their pubic hair?? Who doesn't nair or wax in this day and age???

Oh, wow. I thought the site was evidence from the trial. It's his own porn site? Created from his chambers in the federal judiciary? No wonder he moved to have the 9th COA porn filters dismantled. (Now I guess we know how he came to discover they existed in the first place!)

As if taxpayers weren't up in arms enough about the crazy "life tenure" judiciary. Although this time it is a conservative judge that will raise their ire.

Can someone please share how he came to sit by designation on this particular case? And how often he sits by designation? I think that makes a huge difference in whether or not he should be recused.

I also think people should be allow to change their votes as to his recusal now that they know that the site being discussed is his own personal kinky porn site and not just a federal judge blundering over an online data storage of evidence in a trial before him....

Anyone who thinks his porn collection was "normal" has problems of their own. Nekkid pictures are one thing. Some of this stuff sounds over the top. And then to say it's "funny" and pass it around to his "friends"??

I agree with the other commenters -- Lat, you're being a hypocrite.

And, yeah, a guy who is entertained by the idea of women being cows is kind of a creep, and I really doubt he'd be objective. Of course everyone likes porn. But there's porn that's about sex or porn that caters to specific acceptable fetishes and such *that don't harm anyone*, and then there's porn that's about degrading entire groups of people (e.g., women, blacks, Jews, etc.) And THEN there's porn that can only titillate those who are sick enough to get off on the sexual abuse of someone incapable of consent (e.g., children, animals). Where the fuck is PETA on this one??

Somehow I doubt the Founding Fathers meant for the First Amendment to protect someone's inalienable right to distribute images of people sexually abusing animals.

Interesting - so far the poll results are 60-40 against recusal.

What is the matter with you people? You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things--know you not true art. Having partaken in the one true form of artistic expression innumerable times, I can tell you that nothing sings to my inner muse more than bukake. Salad toss anyone?

2:44 - it is not the be all end all, but it matters because hypocrisy is one part of how these things get traction. Spitzer had no chance in large part because he was a crusader and had gone after the prostitution industry (among others). Koz on the other hand has not been saying porn is despicable and unprotected in his public role, while doing the opposite in private life. It is a significant fact, but I did not suggest it excuses the behavior or answers questions about his fitness to serve.

If the Founding Father didn't mean for the First Amendment to protect images of people having sex with animals, they could easily have written "Freedom of speech shall only encompass the written and spoken word." They didn't.

Why do you keep changing the page, Lat? Any other judge would be Judge of the Day for sure. AK's foibles, on the other hand, are buried beneath links. Niiiiice.

JUDGE OF THE DAY

The real issue here is that the Judge is quite literally sitting in judgment in a trial over whether similar porn (involving beastiality, etc) is legal. It becomes esp. pressing given that this was not a case randomly assigned to him: Thus, it will appear to the public that he took a break from his COA work and chose to sit on this trial either (1) because the subject matter amuses him or (2) because he wants a certain outcome. Hardly an appearance of impartiality....

How on earth is the "no" to recusal category winning? How is this even a close question?

"Yeah, but he's a pervert, Dude."

@3:12: So the First Amendment protects abusing animals? What about children?

I get your argument that the First Amendment protects images, including porn. But beastiality is a form of animal abuse, and your constitutional chest thumping doesn't change that.

In Lat's defense, he did put this in boldface type:

"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"

The Kozinski porn news is outrageous.

Underneath their robes, indeed.

Lat's headline only talks about the trial. way to bury the real story about your friend AK, lat. HOW ABOUT A HEADLINE CALLING OUT AK'S "FUNNY" PORN SITE????

Koz has got a jack-top...nice

Why is bestiality considered a form of animal abuse? There's plenty of stuff we make animals do against their will for our own personal pleasure, and it's all perfectly legal. And many of these things are objectively harmful to the animal, whereas nobody knows for certain whether or not donkeys like getting jacked off.

What's going on here? You have committed a classic "burying the lead." Based on the values and content of this site (gossipy info about the law, especially federal judges, and especially Judge Koz), one would think that a revelation that a federal Judge--not just a federal judge, but the most famous federal judge outside of the SC--posted a pronographic web site (and admitted as such) would be front page news. Your site loses credibility in the short-shrift, ho-hum treatment you have given this blockbuster story.

Hey Lat - your hero is into beastiality. Guess you should end your fetish with him since he's clearly into someone else.

The article only says a half naked man was cavorting with a sexually aroused animal. That doesn't necessarily mean they were humping. Moreover, we "abuse" animals in any number of ways (see e.g. steak, leather shoes, fur coats). I don't really see what's so bad about helping an animal get off. At least they're alive afterwards, and likely in a much better mood.

The term is "burying the lede," Professor Journalism.

well said 3:26, well said

People have been fired from prestigious jobs for much less.

3:31, not necessarily *exclusively* bestiality...

Judgeship + pervert = judge of the day

Judgeship + former supreme court clerk + ATL correspondent = "total awesomeness"

So it goes at ATL.

Has to be Judge of the Day - to do less would be to show lack of journalistic integrity.

3:26 and 3:31 -- hilarious

is it really animal/child abuse to wank off a donkey or an 11 year-old? I mean, they probably enjoyed it. Likewise, rape. I mean, it's not like I killed the broad, and she seemed to be having fun by the end.

No harm, no foul, right?

Really brilliant stuff, 3:26 & 3:31

Perhaps the woman in question was posing as "Rose 2d of Aberlone"...

@3:26 -- yeah, we kill animals (sometimes in very cruel ways) to eat. That doesn't mean we should condone humans raping them for the humans' sexual gratification. (The animals didn't consent. Nor did they initiate the acts. You can't simply say there's no proof that they didn't want to have sex with humans -- in most species sex is for procreation, not pleasure, and thus inter-species sex isn't something that these animals want, even if they appear to outwardly respond.)

Why are these public figures so often such idiots? Why on EARTH would you put yourself in this position given your responsibility to the public and the possibility that this kind of exposure would occur? He should recuse himself if only to make all of this go away.

And, yes, this is the biggest news in weeks on ATL.

3:36: Brilliant.

3:34 -- your analogy, in its failure to distinguish between humans and other animals, reeks of fail.

3:36 -- we kill and abuse animals for purposes other than "to eat."

The basic philosophical position of PETA and its ilk is that animals and humans are equivalent, and have the same rights. That position is not obvious to most humans.

Exploiting animals is not generally considred morally comparable to exploiting children.

no, 3:40, the point is that neither animals nor minor children are capable of consenting, you giant douche.

Dear All Other Animals:

We won. To the victor go the spoils.

Sincerely,

Humans

The point is that humans and animals are NOT the same. It's precisely the reason I can make a jacket out of a cow and why I cannot make one out of your flesh for trying to reduce human beings and animals to the same level of generality.

my god lat go after AK like a rabid dog just like you go after everyone else or go go home and cry i am a fraud

the greater does not always include the lesser.

yes, our law and morality generally view eating or killing animals to use them for clothing as acceptable. But our law and morality do not view torturing animals as acceptable -- see Vick and dogfighting, or using animals as sexual objects.

Yeah, 3:40, I got your point. My point was that it's a pretty superficial analogy considering all the other relevant moral distinctions between a human child and an animal.

OK 3:44, am go-going home now.... you are a fraud, you are a fraud, you are a fraud, you are a fraud . . . .

Do you realize how big of a deal this is? Lat, I suggest you take advanatege of your working relationship with Judge Kozinski and get an exclusive interview with him where he further explains why he was so shortsighted to have posted this site. Seriously, if this were Obama or McCain (or Obama's pastor), their campaign would be over. Although it was a remote possibility, any SC hopes for Koz are gone. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see a movement sprout up to remove his as chief judge of the 9th in the next few days.

This is why we have newspapers and other kinds of accountable and respectable media - so we aren't forced to rely on the whims of bloggers.

LA Times: Kozinski porn story front and center.

Above the Law: Kozinski porn story not only buried, but buried within another story.

S&C represented the Nazis for god's sake, we'll represent a guy who likes upskirt and jagoff picks.

Field Marshal DiBlasi

Who are you people .. is bestiality right or wrong?? It's gross. End of story.

3:49: Thank you. I'm actually more appalled by Kozinski's "Hey, whatever" response to all of this than by the shit on his website.

Thanks, 3:46, for that incredibly unhelpful observation.

S&C represented the Nazis for god's sake, we'll represent a guy who likes upskirt and jagoff pics.

Field Marshal DiBlasi

S&C represented the Nazis for god's sake, we'll represent a guy who likes upskirt and jagoff pics.

Field Marshal DiBlasi

I wonder if S&C would represent a guy like Kozinski, does anyone know?

PLAY HELD AT FORD THEATRE!!!!!!!

(president lincoln assassinated)

Uptight Americans.

3:51 so true. he thinks the stuff is odd, interesting, funny, hey - whatever guys!!! hahahaha

sorry koz, try the word sorry. totally inappropriate and cant even admit it.

LAT your efforts here (or lack thereof) are nothing short of SHAMELESS.

Pain + fear + suffering should be minimized, whether felt by humans or animals.

Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

Beastiality is against the law. If you want to make it legal, go sponsor a bill.

But THE REAL POINT here is that a judge that condones beastiality porn should not be overseeing a trial to determine whether such materials are legal.

3:51 -- to which 3:46 post are you referring?

The first, mine, I think rather nicely refutes the simplistic reasoning offered by the d-bags who are asserting that it's totally cool to anally rape kittens because, hey, like, we eat cows and, uh, use all kinds of animal fur to make coats.

The second 3:46, however, is rather unhelpful in making bold, but unelaborated, assertions.

Thank you, 3:46(1). But I am afraid your ability to understand and contextualize the finer distinctions -- rather than loudly shouting "humans and animals are different!" -- will go over the heads of most here. We only like superficial chest thumping about the moral superiority of humans, please.

Kozinski shouldn't recuse himself. Peple like porn, and most people aren't strictly vanilla. To think otherwise is ignorant and absurd. If Kozinski gets off to the same type of porn that's on trial, then he should recuse himself, but nothing in the article suggests that he does. It's just a shame that he felt he had to defend himself by calling the porn "funny" instead of just admitting to being human.

I bet all you outraged types are just FANTASTIC in the sack.

3:12, did you intentionally misinterpret the First Amendment point? The relevant part was not "images," which would have been clear to someone with half a brain. The First Amendment also doesn't protect distributing images of naked children posed in a sexually seductive manner. The fact that they are images is hardly the end of the discussions. Just because the First Amendment protects some images, does not mean it protects ALL images.

Those of you who favor the sexual abuse of animals: as to your (very stupid) arguments that, "hey, we abuse them in other ways, and that's legal," assuming the correctness of your premise, so what? We allow some abuse of animals, so we should allow any and all abuse of animals? Two wrongs make a right?

Also, aside from cruel methods of killing animals (something whose legality is questionable at best anyway) and similarly cruel things done to animals at commercial farms (again, even to the extent it may be legal to hook cows up to machines that will milk them dry, that doesn't mean it isn't abuse), what sorts of animal abuse do you think are legally condoned in our society? Many jurisdictions have now banned the sale of foie gras because it involves force-feeding geese. By your reasoning, hey, it's food, shouldn't the geese enjoy it? Why don't you go to Chicago and explain why the sale of foie gras must be allowed?

Do you seriously not get that using for sex a living being who is incapable of consent is immoral and illegal? You seriously don't see what's wrong with fucking your jack russell terrier in the ass??

If we allow the guardians of mentally handicapped people to consent to sex for them (as E. Volokh suggested would be a good solution to the problem posed in the Slate.com dementia sex article), why can't we allow animals' guardians to consent to sex for them?

3:59, nothing in the article suggests that Kozinski had or used bestiality porn. "Cavorting" can mean anything. Even A&F published a catalogue that included a picture of a naked woman riding a horse.

4:06 -- would you find it legally and morally objectionable if I stuck my dick in a tree? It's also a "living being...incapable of consent."

"PLAY HELD AT FORD THEATRE!!!!!!!

(president lincoln assassinated)"

AWESOME.

4:11 -- it'd be fine by me if somebody shoved his dick, or a baseball bat, in either a tree or you. Although both the tree and you are living beings incapable of consent, neither the tree nor you have a brain (in contrast to beings like a donkey, a cat or a human).

What about a really smart chimpanzee? It seems they could give meaningful consent through a series of toothy grins and hand clapping. Would that be OK?

4:11, actually, yeah, please go ahead and do that. Be sure to hump it lots and lots, and make sure it's a dry old splintery tree. You and your dick just go have a grand old time with that wooden pussy.

Lat is radio silent. Can't take the heat I guess.

Thank you to 3:46(1), 4:00, 4:06, and others. I had begun to wonder if the legal profession really did lack compassion or the intellectual ability to see the shades of grey

4:09 - because we don't. That's an absurd hypothetical. All the analogy shows is that each idea is roughly as bad and as creepy as the other.

I love my foie gras. If you don't love it, don't eat it. If you honestly think that the methods used to produce it constitute animal abuse and that said abuse is the moral equivalent of your Uncle Gary, "the tickle monster" raping your five year old, then you are an idiot.

To the people condoning bestiality, I get part of your point, but you're presenting it in an awfly creepy way. How about this:

Having sex with an animal is no worse (and in fact is probably better) than most of the horrible things we do to animals. Why do people get all up in arms about bestiality when they sit silent for all other types of animal abuse? There are two possible answers: (1) these people are hypocrites and conveniently lose their reverence for living beings when the abuse benefits them, (2) we have a puritanical view of sexuality that imbues objectively equivilant behaviors (e.g., abuse) with added contempt when sexuality is involved.

note: farmers "jack off" animals all the time to collect sperm, and they induce orgasm in the female during artificial insimination because it increases the likelihood of pregnancy. Is there a moral differnce between doing this for fun and doing it for profit? If so, why, other than the subjective "ick" factor of deviant sexuality?

4:17, it should have been obvious, but no, that was not my point. The point was that something that is arguably LESS abusive to animals than rape is outlawed -- the point was to refute those who, bizarrely, seem to think any kind of abuse of animals is both morally and legally a-ok.

A respected law professor today proposed that allowing guardians to consent to sex on behalf of the mentally disabled was a "reasonable approach" to solving the problem of depriving the mentally disabled from having legal sex.

Said prof was also a Kozinski clerk.

I fucked 4:14's dog once. She was mediocre. No wonder 4:14 is so uptight and angry.

4:22, thanks for making the first *reasonable* argument in favor of bestiality. You have a fair point, but you are also assuming that those of us who oppose bestiality do not also oppose other forms of cruelty to animals. Speaking only for myself, I can already tell you that assumption is faulty.

Or, rather, the first reasonable argument against those of us who oppose bestiality. Yours, however, isn't quite an outright justification of bestiality.

LOL @ 4:14

I have no opinion one way or the other on this, just a question: What kind of loser creates an account to comment on this site??

What about girls doing dogs/horses/donkeys? Surely the animal consents in that scenario.

lol, thank you 4:29 and 4:30. Your 4:30 post captured my intention.

4:33, you're just jealous of my hamster graphic.

I doubt any of the outraged commenters on here have actually witnessed any acts of so-called "bestiality." Having been to more than one "Donkey Show," however, I can assure you that there are situations where the animal not only consents but is indeed the sexual aggressor and dominant partner.

Accord, 4:29.

And thanks also to 4:22 for being the first pro-beastiality commenter to intelligently engage in the discussion (the "humans are the best!!!" posts just don't cut it).

4:35 and 4:37, so you're saying that you always, in every situation no matter what, are able to prevent yourselves from getting an erection? And that every time you get an erection you have consented to sex with whomever or whatever happens to be around at the moment (including, say, your buddy Jim)?

"Having been to more than one "Donkey Show,"

Jesus Christ. There are some freaks out there.

If I mount Jim and proceed to fuck him for 20 minutes, yes.

4:39 -- I'm sorry you have such intense disdain for other cultures.

4:39,
Having an erection? Not consent. Sticking my erection into an orifice? Consent.

--4:35

God, this country is fucking ridiculous about sex. Look, lots of people think weird things are funny or sexy or both. There are people out there who would think your tastes were freaky, if they knew about them. Get over yourselves. Kozinski's only problem is being technologically inept.

What about letting a dog lick your balls? OK or not OK, morality police?