Kozinski should be impeached. If any of that porn is considered illegal (and I believe there's a good chance some of it is), they have a basis for doing it.

I don't want some dirty prick making law. Seriously, why would he want to look at pictures so demeaning to women?

I wonder if his feeding clerks to Scalia will go down.

Isn't Kozinski the one who said the author of The Brethren wasn't welcome to argue in his court? NO WONDER Kozinski's so hostile to behind the scenes info getting out.

Poor SOB. What's so hard to believe about his version of events? His idiot son put a bunch of stuff up. This says more about the need for everybody to seriously police their Internet exposure than it does about the Kozinski.

151, I don't believe Kozinski has even denied that a lot of it was his. See the excerpts below:

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/06/chief_judge_kozinski_and_the_i.php

Kozinski, 57, told the Times he thought the material on his site, which included a video of a man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal, couldn't be seen by the public. The judge said he didn't believe any of the images were obscene.

She said that after the story broke, one of the judge's sons called Kozinski to say he had been responsible for uploading some of the material onto the computer. However, she could not say how much or what material was involved.

The Times reported that Kozinski said he must have accidentally uploaded the images to his server while trying to upload something else. He also said he would delete some material, including a picture of nude women on all fours painted to look like cows, which he called "degrading," the paper said.

1:46 - Not "The Brethren," but "Closed Chambers" (Eddie Lazarus).

http://www.amazon.com/Closed-Chambers-Future-Modern-Supreme/dp/0140283560

I know I shouldn't be shocked. I know tons and tons of people look at this stuff... Every time someone famous gets busted for something like this, I always tell myself I won't be shocked again:

But its impossible for me not to be surprised. A federal judge? Kozinski of all people?

The whole thing is weird.

Can Kozinski even go on as a Judge now? I know I'll never look at him the same way again. He'd just be a major distraction in any court. I know I'd be thinking "this is the beast porn guy" "this is the guy with a photo of naked women on all fours painted like cows."

203, i agree. judges should be held to a higher standard. i also really doubt all of that porn was legal. does anyone know the law on bestiality porn?

Wonder how his female clerks feel...

If I were his female clerk I'd bring a tazer and some pepper spray to work, and watch my drinks while I'm around him.

This is the most overblown story ever. Some dude with a grudge went digging in a folder that was public but wasn't being broadcast and found a few dirty pictures, then held onto the information until an opportune time. He wasn't "hosting a porn website," or even linking to pictures.

Making a gigantic mountain out of the tiniest of molehills. Slightly stupid? Sure. But nothing more than that.

Move on. Not a damn thing to see here.

209, you think it's okay for a judge to have beast porn and numerous degrading photos of women?

Someone like that shouldn't be making law.

Also, some of that porn is probably illegal.

It simply amazes me that people somehow believe public servants need to be perfect. Who cares if the guy looks at porn? He's probably been looking at it for years, and all the while has been lauded as one of the greatest legal minds in our judicial system. Human beings aren't perfect; it's nonsensical to expect that they will be simply because they have a public role.

Show me how some proof or at least offer some plausible explanation as to how his looking at women dressed as cows will adversely affect his ability to judge and maybe I'll go along with it. And don't even start with the sexism line. Just because Wagner was an anti-Semitic does not mean that he was not one of the greatest composers ever to live. Excellent work can be produced by even the most eccentric of characters.

206, it wasn't bestiality porn (it wasn't a sex act performed on an animal). It was a stupid image.

It simply amazes me that people somehow believe public servants need to be perfect. Who cares if the guy looks at porn? He's probably been looking at it for years, and all the while has been lauded as one of the greatest legal minds in our judicial system. Human beings aren't perfect; it's nonsensical to expect that they will be simply because they have a public role.

Show me how some proof or at least offer some plausible explanation as to how his looking at women dressed as cows will adversely affect his ability to judge and maybe I'll go along with it. And don't even start with the sexism line. Just because Wagner was an anti-Semitic does not mean that he was not one of the greatest composers ever to live. Excellent work can be produced by even the most eccentric of characters.

1:41 - "I don't want some dirty prick making law."

2:11 - "Someone like that shouldn't be making law."

You disgust me.

I'm a conservative, and admire his intellect, but this doesn't surprise me at all. He's a weird dude. He's one of those guys that's so smart that he doesn't think standards applicable to everyone else apply to him.

2:12, I think numerous studies have demonstrated that viewing degrading porn like that causes men to develop negative attitudes towards women. No one even questions that.

2:14, you disgust me.

cosign with 2:16

I guess I'm not convinced.

First, it's questionable that they are really his files - the quotes above indicate to me that it's not really known what is whose. It's also not clear to me what the nature of the storage site really was, who had access to post to it, etc. Without knowing, forming an opinion seems premature.

Second, there's a big difference between hosting some forwarded files (no matter how tasteless, and the internets are full of them) and masturbating to donkey porn or hating women, which is what everybody appears to be accusing him of.

Third, even if he does masturbate to donkey porn (which as far as I know is not illegal, even in Arkansas), making the stash, if that's what it was, publicly available was apparently inadvertent, which to me means that the big issue is how fast this kind of thing gets blown out of all proportion and, as I said earlier, how everybody ought to actively monitor their Internet exposure (lock down those Facebook pages, kiddies).

1:51

2:14.2

This is just it. Apparently the standards allowable by law do not apply to him. But not for the reasons cited.

I've lost all respect for the man. Not because of the pictures, but because I just learned (in the LA Times article) that he named his son "Yale." That's disgusting.

2:19, I demand more from the people charged with making law. Sorry, but to me, if you view porn like that, I don't want you deciding issues or making law that affects me. There are many, many people qualified to do Kozinski's job. If he lacks the moral character, give his job to someone else.

Especially, given that women are grossly outnumbered at the appellate level, I'm especially concerned about things like this. There aren't enough women on the 9th circuit to keep people like Kozinski in check. He needs to be impeached.

ATL on BBC?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7450359.stm

2:24, You need to get a grip. If you think the Koz is the only judge looking at porn, you’re extremely naïve.

Seriously, 2:24, wtf? "people like Kozinski"? ummm... approximately 49.5% of the country, and that's just counting the men?

2:24, I agree wholeheartedly. While I would obviously prefer never to have known what Kozinski does in his private life, now that he has been stupid enough to let the whole world know that he likes to look at women painted as cows and on all fours, it will be difficult for women to practice in front of him and feel they are treated with respect equal to that which Kozinski accords men. And sorry, I'll give you that lots and lots of people look at porn, but how many take the time to (1) search out and (2) upload to a personal server the kinds of images he apparently had? Aroused animals? Women painted as cows? That's seriously weird. Makes me question his judgment in other areas of life, though of course it certainly clarifies his crusade for the First Amendment.

The pix are probably legal (as First Amendment scholar, he'd know), but to suggest that others can't make judgments on this or any other vice he may have is just silly.

It seems to me that people are missing the main point: by his own admission, Judge Kozinski is someone who enjoys, and even saves for future enjoyment and sharing with others, purportedly humorous email forwards. I was not aware that any sentient being actually thought this kind of forwarded email (usually captioned "check this out!" or "this is hilarious!") was funny or even mildly amusing. In my estimation, this shows an egregious, even impeachable, lack of judgment.

Does he also keep a vast repository of business offerings sent to him by wives of late-lamented Nigerian politicians, tragically unable to move vast funds out of the country without the assistance of a reputable businessman possessing a US bank account such as himself?

Am I the only one confused as to what Kozinski actually did that was so bad? A couple of not-that-bad pics. People, please get a life.

But I agree with 2:21(2). That is disgusting.

The question is one of, well, judgment. The only way Koz gets off (so to speak) is if he did not know the "stuff" folder existed. Otherwise he should know that everything on ... let's see, what's that domain name again? Oh yeah, ALEX.KOZINSKI.COM will be attributed to him. It takes a serious lack of judgment to leave objectionable "stuff" on that site and to leave it open to the public.

No, this isn't child porn (though that autofellatio pic looks like a pretty young dude). It doesn't appear to be beastiality or to reflect any serious perversions, but it shows a lack of judgment on the Koz's part.

So should he be impeached? No. Should he recuse in the porn case? Maybe, who cares really. But is this appropriately the subject of gossip sites and should he be scorned, pitied, and mocked for his lack of judgment? Yes, all of that is appropriate.

If the woman is offered money to get painted like a cow and choses to engage in the transaction (or just wants to do it for free - freakier things have happened), how is it demeaning to women? I feel demeaned because no one wants to pay me to do the same.

Yeah, seriously, the most disgusting revelation here is definitely that he named his child "Yale." That should be a capital offense.

If this story has taught us anything, it is that it is best to keep your personal porn folder nonpubic.

2:53: Carry it around on an encryped thumb drive.

Isn't the real offense the illegal downloading of mp3's and images?

I mean, who cares if he looks at porn. In fact, I would rather have a judge who's into porn (even girls painted like cows) than a judge who is a religious bigot and thinks pornography is an addiction that requires therapy.

I'm slightly disturbed by the facts as they are, but I'm really disturbed by the fact that some commenters are willing to impute misogyny and immorality to Koz and demand his job from these facts. The man's opinions speak enough as to his capacity to be a good judge - why does some bizarre porn entirely trump and eliminate any countervailing factors here? I really hope that some of these commenters are just trying to "stir the pot" as Janice Rodgers Brown would say.

I named my children after community colleges.

2:31, there was a study out not long ago of the california courts showing rampant sexism within the court system, at all levels of the judiciary. So I think your point, that a lot of male judges are viewing porn that degrades women, doesn't help you.

If anything, it shows that there's a need to aggressively remove people like Kozinski.

3:36
get over yourself. looking at porn isn't an impeachable offense. should that be part of the litmus test now, also? "Do you look at porn?"
just because your easily offended doesn't make what he did wrong.
The "bestiality" thing isn't bestiality at all. it's a video of a guy trying to pee in a field and a horney donkey keeps running after him. just like K described, it's "funny", not "bestiality" or "illigal"

He is a good, fair Judge and has my support.

"there was a study out not long ago of the california courts showing rampant sexism within the court system, at all levels of the judiciary."

Why do I suspect that this study was conducted by people who believe that having a porn collection is oppressive misogyny?

You puritans make me retch. The clip that the LA Times described like it was some sick beastiality video was actually a harmless video that has been broadcast on SPIKE TV. Get a life, this shows the guy is normal.

So anyone who enjoys pictures of naked women or who owns porn is not qualified to sit on a trial to determine what is obscene or not? Ridiculous! I think just the opposite. Kozinski's material seems perfectly legal, so that isn't the question. If the only people deciding what is obscene or not are those who have never actually viewed or enjoyed pornography, then we are going to get a skewed result. If you let only teetotalers determine who is drunk or not, then taking even a sip of beer would become dangerous territory, if you take my meaning.

He has two other sons, neither of them named after Ivy League schools.

Now that I've seen the actual material, I can't believe the LA Times even printed that story. Describing that video as a man "cavorting with a donkey" is pretty irresponsible.

Did someone say porn?? Cool--I thought I was the only famous federal judge who was into porn.
I think I'll take more Kozinski clerks now.

--Clarence Thomas

Stop this at once!!

As a woman, not that it's particularly relevant to my opinion, I have this to say: You can't be serious.

I have yet to see a valid argument as to how Kozinski being associated with this porn indicates that he "hates women." It seems a lot of people haven't read the debates (McGowan, MacKinnon) that claim porn of the most basic kind degrade women (hint: the arguments don't hold water).

Assuming the women in the pornographic materials are willing participants, what is the argument that the degrades women? I guess every photograph of a woman with a mustache drawn over her face also degrades women.

Come on. Get some perspective. Even if the materials *were* degrading to women, it still would not be enough to prove Kozinski discriminates against women, or "hates" women! Ugh! The invalidity of that argument disgusts me!

Koz calls for Judicial Council investigation of himself: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/06/12/kozinski-calls-for-investigation/

Ballsy, if he weren't, you know, the Chief Judge.

Most of the stuff they have shown as having been on his website is not even porn. It is mostly just pictures from some of the more obscene email forwards that get passed around. While it was not the best idea to provide it to visitors to his personal website, this stuff is just not that bad.

Can someone please answer this question:

Why are people freaking out about a judge with possible ties to porn sitting on a district court porn-related trial, when Clarence Thomas has sat, helped decide, and even written opinions in several key 1st Amendment/pornography cases since he has been on the Court.

Am I wrong, or was there not this kind of outcry when Justice Thomas did not recuse himself from such cases as ACLU v. Ashcroft, U.S. v. Williams and Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition?

Koz specifically requested for the judicial conduct council of another circuit -- i.e. not the one he presides over -- to investigate him. He did nothing wrong except leave a video that has been shown on cable television on what he thought was a private website.

Toolbox.

5:59, it's not that he hates women, it's that his possession of this type of porn suggests he views women as less than fully human.

Why else would someone enjoy photos of nude women on all 4s painted as cows. He himself admitted that the photo is degrading.

What's Koz going to do, continue sitting and recuse himself from sitting on any cases with any implications for women?

Impeach Kozinski!

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to digress into family history for a bit. I'm a CPA. My dad's retired, but was a Civil Engineer. I've got an uncle, who I grew up spending a lot of time with, who was a plumber. He's a bit rough around the edges, and has a badly-set broken nose from his time in the Marines, but I love him dearly.

My uncle keeps up a steady stream of forwarded emails. Some are funny, some aren't. Some are a bit edgy, some feature nudity. Some I would show my girlfriend, some I wouldn't forward to anyone. Some I've read, many I've just downloaded and archived. Most have jus a word or two from my uncle, and a bunch of text or pictures from the great internet cloud.

This same uncle was recently diagnosed with a particularly virulent form of leukemia. Although things seem to be heading in the right direction for the moment, there were significant indications a few months back that I might never see him again alive.

It wouldn't surprise me a lot to discover the cow-girl pictures in an saved email that I had not even read. There might be a note attached, saying something flippant about the cowgirls that he and my dad knew before they moved away from Colorado -- or there might not. Either way, if someone suggested that I should censor anything from my email archives that could be embarassing -- including anything tasteless or risque from my uncle -- I would have to reply that it would be over my dead body that this would happen.

Some day, if and when they were ready for it, I could tell my cousins' kids, "your grandad had a peculiar sense of humor" and have an example at hand. Some day, I might remember the man who taught me about snakes, and deer hunting, and living large, and page through these mementos myself. Only an idiot would say that was because I'm aroused by women painted as cows, or that I would have created such images myself.

I have neither seen, nor heard, of anything that would make this other than a purely political hit job -- waving the bloody shirt. The individual who publicized this has an obvious axe to grind, and the LAT would say or do anything to smear anyone more conservative than Castro, Mao, or Lenin.

And for anyone who wants to purge my life of rougher elements, and try to ensure that my uncle is remembered only as a simpering prissy git, please kindly f*** yourselves.

I agree - this is a political hit job by a paranoid litigant. Cyrus Sanai, the attorney who drew the material on Judge Kozinski's website to the media's attention is not simply a lawyer who engaged in a "spirited dispute" over the federal rules. He is an abusive scorched-earth litigant who has a pattern of ignoring the law and disobeying court orders. Check out his case in the W.D. of Washington in which he was sanctioned over $250,000 for what the respected judge called the worst abuse he's seen in 17 years on the bench and 20 some years in private practice. The state court judge made similar comments on the record, as did a California judge in a different case (cited by the W.D. Wash. judge). When things didn't go his way in the state court, he sued the judges. How this guy still has a license is beyond my comprehension.
How about linking to the opinions sanctioning him and describing his abusive behavior. At least those documents are maintained on an unarguably public website.