Exclusive: Kozinski’s Porn — Images from Judge Alex Kozinski’s Web Site
Last night I spoke to Cyrus Sanai, the tipster for that L.A. Times article about the porn on Alex Kozinski’s web site. I called Mr. Sanai at the telephone number indicated for him on the California State Bar web site. I spoke to him for over two hours. During our conversation, Mr. Sanai e-mailed me images that he says he downloaded from Judge Alex Kozinski’s web site on December 24, 2007.
Mr. Sanai told me that the images he viewed were contained in a subdirectory located at http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff. That subdirectory, along with Judge Kozinski’s entire site, has been blocked to viewing by the public. But I have uploaded the images that Mr. Sanai sent me. You can view them in this post.
I warn you that many of these images are pornographic, perverted, and/or disturbing. You should definitely not view them while you are at work. Depending on your sensibilities, you may not want to view them at home.
Nevertheless, the images on Judge Kozinski’s web site are the story of the day, and I believe they are news. I believe that the only way for the public to evaluate them properly is to have the opportunity to look at them firsthand. Accordingly, I have uploaded some of these images to my site, so that interested readers can view them.
Let’s start with a couple of non-pornographic images. For most of the images, I will make you click a link to view them. Not this one. I found this image interesting:
The man on the right bears an uncanny resemblance to Judge Kozinski himself. [UPDATE: My guest blogger Justin Levine says it's not Kozinski. Justin says the picture is of a local radio team. Since Justin works in radio, I'm inclined to defer to him.] 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. [UPDATE: The consensus is unanimous that it's a rag doll that is part of the costume.]
I do know this: the picture above has echoes in another image that Mr. Sanai says came from Judge Kozinski’s site:
And now, for the more disturbing and/or pornographic images.
The L.A. Times article says: “Among the images on the site were a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows . . .”
You may view that not-safe-for-work photo at this link. It depicts two naked women on all fours, painted as cows, viewed from the backside. Their genitalia, perhaps Photoshopped, are clearly visible in the picture.
The article says:
Among the sexually explicit material on his site that he defended as humorous were two photos. In one, a young man is bent over in a chair and performing fellatio on himself. In the other, two women are sitting in what appears to be a cafe with their skirts hiked up to reveal their pubic hair and genitalia. Behind them is a sign reading “Bush for President.”
“That is a funny joke,” Kozinski said.
If you really want to look at the explicit photo of the man performing fellatio on himself, you may view it at this link. And you can view the women exposing their genitalia in front of the “Bush for President” sign here.
The article says: “There was a slide show striptease featuring a transsexual . . .” Mr. Sanai sent me a lengthy, 40-slide slideshow quiz that purports to ask the quiz-taker whether a series of photographs depicts a male or a female. In each case, a naked picture of the person is revealed, showing graphically whether the person is male or female.
The entire slideshow can be viewed here.
The article refers to some material that Mr. Sanai was not able to provide, either because it was too voluminous, or because it was not on the site when he performed his Christmas Eve download.
For example, the article mentions “a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal.” Mr. Sanai tells me that this video was not among the material he downloaded; a reporter at the L.A. Times told him that the video was something that the newspaper found on its own.
Because Mr. Sanai never saw that video, he could not tell me whether it was the video of an aroused donkey chasing a man, which I linked in my original post on this controversy.
The article also describes “a folder that contained a series of photos of women’s crotches in snug-fitting clothing or underwear.” Mr. Sanai was not immediately able to provide these images. He said he believes that he had videos depicting images like this, but that the folder of still images described by the newspaper was probably downloaded by the reporters and not by him.
Mr. Sanai said he downloaded a full CD of material from Judge Kozinski’s site, and that much of it consisted of videos that were too voluminous to download. He said that he would be willing to send me a copy of the CD in the mail. He told me that several news publications already had a copy. However, he said, many of the videos are too voluminous to send by e-mail.
For example, he said, there is a video of defecation. But the closest thing to an image of defecation was this joke image of a man defecating while bungee jumping:
As for alleged images of masturbation, Mr. Sanai said that there is a lengthy video of a woman in a car giving a handjob to a man. The video is titled “Best Woman Driver.” But, he said, it was too lengthy to send by e-mail.
Probably more disturbing than all the porn are the .mp3s. Judge Kozinski’s site had many .mp3 music files. If you do a Google search for http://alex.kozinski.com, page 2 of the results gives you this page. It includes a link to a site that shares .mp3 files, and which refers to the alex.kozinski.com/stuff subdirectory for a download of a Monty Python song. Mr. Sanai maintains that this, together with other evidence, is an indication that Judge Kozinski was sharing .mp3 files. This allegation will require further investigation.
There will be more to come on this story.
UPDATE: Much more material at this link.
The priest costume is undoubtedly a stuffed doll sewn onto the outfit. The shoes match up so he can walk in the thing. He must have fancied himself a real SCREAM at the Halloween party. I agree that the man on the right is very likely AK. At least his wife (ex-wife?) probably knows she married a freak.
Comment by rhodeymark — 6/12/2008 @ 3:01 am
Too bad Cyrus Sanai didn’t know how to screen cap so we could see what the old site looked like.
Comment by Allan Z — 6/12/2008 @ 3:19 am
This is what I pulled off a search engine cache:
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/sfo.mp4
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/bambi.flv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/?D=D
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/?M=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/music/
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/?N=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/?D=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/?M=D
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/?S=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/optical/
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/moscow.DOC
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/consent.htm
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/lehrer.rtf
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/cameltoe.htm
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/Fridays.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/jump.avi
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/cameltoe/
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/SamGross/
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/weird%20al/
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/japanese.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/lights.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/optical.pps
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/20__.doc
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/Health.doc
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/yaser.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/Memo.roma.pdf
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/SNL-DeNiro.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/new/
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/Monthly_Man.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/texas.shootout/
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/georgewwhathe.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/PoolLifeGuard.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/GreatestMovieLine.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/DUI-TEST-SCOTTISH.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/harmonic.motion.eml
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/whymomscan_tdoyoga.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/Apr_6_RushLimbaugh.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/hard.days.night.yiddish.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/jaylobj.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/slingshot.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/consent_files/
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/ATT-History.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/MonkeyJoke.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/upside.down.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/BBCCopsUndies.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/DoninoPoolFinal.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/Christmas_Application.pdf
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/a.day.without.jews.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/100movies.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/TheMansong.pps
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/siguemiteta.swf
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/flying_grandma.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/isitmanisitwoman.pps
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/3rdWorldBombSquad.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/honda.commercial.html
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/testicle.interview.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/deaf.ultimate.karakoke.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/TurkishGillette.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/ATM_THEFTS.pps
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/XmasKangaroo.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/crazy.fish.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/BanningJo.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/w_zales_ad1.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/profreading.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/ringmybell3555.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/Disappointment.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/Whatdoyousee_1.pps
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/GarageDoorOpener.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/COMPUTERENHANCEMENTS.doc
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/videodelmese_Yoga.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/BritishAmbassadorLetter.doc
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/Flowchartofgettingsome.pps
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/SNL-SuspectedbertDeNiro.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/St.Marteen1.pps
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/harrasment_1.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/piss_diver.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/funny-cats-2.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/menciaMountain.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/BestWomanDriver.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/TheformulaofSex.pps
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/CaughtOnFilm_21.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/ArrestedTexasStyle.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/Why%20Women%20Live%20Longer/
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/out0001.css
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/deafkaraoke.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/Howtoputonabra.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/passcontrol.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/divorce.doc1.pdf
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/edwards.pretty.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/MedicalAlert11.doc
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/singingrabbi.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/ParkingExpert1.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/john.mccain.sings.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/Canadian%20currency/
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/headache-cure-56.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/BadDayAtTheRodeo_1.WMV
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/chinesemassproduction.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/so_where_did_you_guys_last_have_sex.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/Where_the_sun_don_t_shine.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/Notice%20of%20Appeal%20–%20pro%20se%20champion.pdf
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/news%20report%20from%20Iraq.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/wife%20joke%20breaking_news.pdf
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/cameltoe/?M=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/weird%20al/?S=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/weird%20al/?M=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/weird%20al/?N=D
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/music/?N=D
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/weird%20al/?D=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/optical/?N=D
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/optical/?M=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/truck-art/?S=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/music/?D=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/?S=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/cameltoe/?D=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/?M=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/optical/?S=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/?N=D
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/truck-art/?M=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/SamGross/?M=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/SamGross/?N=D
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/cameltoe/?N=D
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/truck-art/?D=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/?D=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/music/?S=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/cameltoe/?S=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/music/?M=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/SamGross/?D=A
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/truck-art/?N=D
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/printe.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/spoofs/
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/WhyIQuitCourtReporting.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/SmartestKidinClass.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/Ford_Police_Chase_1.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/terraboots.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/Need%20glasses.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/Whywomenhatesports_2.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/borrowthecar.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/consent_files/stylesheet081206.css
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/cellphones_1.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/bad_date.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/SneakyDog.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/WineOpener.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/ItalianChewingGum.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/camel_toe_sm_mov_files/batcss1.css
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/TellYourFriend_1.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/brahmabeer.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/youre.so.cool.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/captain_.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/DeWalt.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/Trunk_Monkey1/
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/cameltoe/cameltoe.htm
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/smartguy.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/toyota%20ac.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/Howtoputonabra.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/Momsaysok.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/beer.voodoo.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/glasses.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/VideoPhone.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/hamashiyach-duracell.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/beercaps.WMV
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/Alwaysletherspeakfirst1.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/hd.tv.israel.small.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/molson_score.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/spartacus1_hi.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/beer.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/MercedesE-class.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/Accolo-Rethink-Recruiting.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/learn.english.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/Keta-Keta.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/Burger%20King/
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/korean.dhl.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/video.message.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/Mercedes-beauty-brains.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/strip-poker.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/weird%20al/Unknown%20Artist/
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/hd.tv.israel.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/Travesurasporcelular.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/OPTICIAN.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/bunker.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/cameltoe/CamelToe2.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/SprintCrime.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/leather.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/TheNewGuy1.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/wedding_ring.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/cellphone.karma.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/MorningAfter-BeerCommercial.wmv
http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/commercials/MercedesCommercial.wmv
Comment by Allan Z — 6/12/2008 @ 3:32 am
Thing is Porno People make the worst lovers, they don’t know how to have sex. Porn is really the reflection of a person’s sexual hang-up, in the end they’re quite sexually frustrated people.
Seriously, I won’t waste my time with a guy who is into porn it’s a clear indiction he’ll be lousy in bed.
Comment by syn — 6/12/2008 @ 4:20 am
I’ve seen that donkey video on America’s Funniest Home Videos or some shit, probably the British equivalent. That’s funny as hell.
None of that stuff is that big a deal. You really haven’t even begun to plumb the depths of the internet if you find any of that shocking.
Comment by Levi — 6/12/2008 @ 4:29 am
Is that kid in the contortion image legal?
Comment by Curious — 6/12/2008 @ 4:54 am
No doubt that Levi has plumbed the depths already.
Comment by JD — 6/12/2008 @ 4:55 am
I think most of this stuff was sent around in viral e-mails while I was in law school. I’m guessing most people on this web site have seen most of this material before (I hadn’t seen the “cows,” or the self-fellatio, but that’s about it).
None of what I’ve seen so far can rationally be called “obscene,” because it all has, at the very least, some literary value. Why? Because it all contains at lease some very clear, intentional irony and/or slapstick comedy.
Unless you have no sense of humor whatsoever, and think stuff like “Something About Mary” is obscene (as opposed to simply boorish). And if you do, I weep for your children.
Comment by Phil — 6/12/2008 @ 5:02 am
Racists
Comment by JD — 6/12/2008 @ 5:09 am
Because it all contains at lease some very clear, intentional irony and/or slapstick comedy.
Yeah like ‘I can’t get it up so I gotta go freaky’
The slapstick comedy is too funny.
That’s the funniest thing about porno people; limpy impotents frustrated by their bad performance.
Ya gotta feel sorry for the poor things.
Comment by syn — 6/12/2008 @ 5:36 am
Alex needs a some hard time in CA slammer [Ed: I have removed language that could be interpreted as threatening]
Comment by Brian Allan — 6/12/2008 @ 5:48 am
The one with a minor fellating a priest looks very disturbing. That is if indeed he is a minor or a midget.
Comment by love2008 — 6/12/2008 @ 5:51 am
This is all very juvenile stuff. Is the Judge auditioning for Jerry Springer?
Comment by David Ehrenstein — 6/12/2008 @ 5:57 am
The picture of the cow girls on all fours is just so……how do you say….awful? I have had to download it for closer and more thorough observation.
Comment by love2008 — 6/12/2008 @ 5:57 am
So…how is someone who is Catholic supposed to get a fair trial with someone on the bench who obviously has a very, very negative view of religion?
And what is the significance of someone who is obviously homosexual making light of the Priest scandals, is he jealous? Does he do the same, and feels a need to revel in it? Does he want it to happen more often? What is the criticism?
This guy is a sick piece of shit.
Comment by Rev. Dr. E Buzz Miller — 6/12/2008 @ 6:01 am
And this is supposed to be a Judge, a symbol of moral integrity. Above reproach and blameless. How does he not think he should at this point recuse himself, step down from the seat of adjudicator and stand trial for abuse of office and character assassination. Also abuse of minors.
Comment by love2008 — 6/12/2008 @ 6:18 am
All so TRUE! Except I can’t bring myself to feel sorry for them. Pathetic wanna-be’s.
Comment by Redhead Infidel — 6/12/2008 @ 6:19 am
syn -you seem to be remarkably well-acquainted with the sexual prowess of a federal judge. Care to explain how you acquired this knowledge?
Or someone who finds the sex scandals to be funny - notice that the Catholic jokes are only in that arena.
Comment by theo — 6/12/2008 @ 6:21 am
From the titles of the links that Allan Z posted I can tell you I have seen most of them because they were posted on or linked by other bloggers that the owner of this site regularly links to. Also, some of them lend credence to the argument that they were uploaded by his son.
Comment by jen — 6/12/2008 @ 6:22 am
The one with a minor fellating a priest looks very disturbing. That is if indeed he is a minor or a midget
Both minors and midgets have arms made of flesh and bone as opposed to socks stuffed with material.
Comment by jen — 6/12/2008 @ 6:24 am
this is too bad, kozinski was my favorite federal judge. his effort to blame his son, after initially taking responsibility, is contemptible.
priests getting oral from kids is funny stuff, you can’t mock the catholic church too much for what it’s done the last 2000 years, but naked women painted as cows is degrading. i didn’t think autofellatio was physically possible, learn something new every day.
i can’t blame cyrus sanai at all. if a judge messed up in something as personal as my parents’ divorce and i found out he was sitting on a keg of dynamite like this, i would for sure set off that dynamite, count on it.
chapter 117,238 of the big book i didn’t think the public could reach that. why do smart people do stupid things? i do stupid things once in awhile myself, just not on this scale. thanks to the www for alleviating boredom. schadenfreude at the mighty brought low in a tsunami of prurient titillation. i know i can trust patterico.com to disclose any kinky details the msm may have overlooked.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/12/2008 @ 6:25 am
In exposing the judge is this site not spreading pronography ?
Comment by David Ehrenstein — 6/12/2008 @ 6:26 am
This is sick and plainly evil. This does NOT have any literary merit. Child porn is illegal and rightly so. This Alex douche bag should not just be fired but should be thrown into jail for indecency. What a sick, vile, and evil individual who makes a mockery of our judicial system. Who needs criminals with “judges” like these? Child rape is not funny, either. Anyone who finds that funny is an evil piece of shit who deserves to burn in hell. Yes, this stuff is a “big deal” and anyone who thinks otherwise is morally retarded. Just because someone doesn’t think child porn is funny doesn’t make them not have a sense of humor: it means they are a human being.
Freedom of speech, even if perversely twisted to protect porn (even though it’s originally intended to focus on political speech and the whole “porn-is-speech” mantra is a recent perversion from activist courts), is not absolute and doesn’t trump other rights. There are exceptions, like copyright infringment, libel/slander (but harder to prove against public individuals and must show actual malice, for example), inciting a riot, threatening a group or person with specific time and place mentioned (or sometimes just threatening a person as assault), false light, invasion of privacy, and of course obscenity. It’s strange how the “laws” shift with the general mood of the judiciary. Impeach this turd sandwich, a vile and despicable moron, and then prosecute him as well. Obviously that won’t happen anytime soon with all the media bias (recent article talked of his “distinguished career” in the title) as well as the brainwashed masses who don’t understand communication law and are porn addicts themselves. Talk about Soddom and Gomorrah all over again.
By the way, you can see yahoo’s cache of the page at http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ipc=1&.intl=us&u=alex.kozinski.com/stuff/%3FM%3DA&d=OKGAoJzfQ6-o&p=http%3A%2F%2Falex.kozinski.com%2Fstuff which lists all the other files that were on there.
Comment by Common Sense Conservative — 6/12/2008 @ 6:26 am
Beef. It’s what’s for dinner.
Comment by bob — 6/12/2008 @ 6:38 am
Impeach this turd sandwich, a vile and despicable moron, and then prosecute him as well. Obviously that won’t happen anytime soon with all the media bias (recent article talked of his “distinguished career” in the title) as well as the brainwashed masses who don’t understand communication law and are porn addicts themselves. Talk about Soddom and Gomorrah all over again.
Wow, what did Kozinski ever do to you?
I prefer having a tolerant, easygoing, hard-to-offend judge on the bench to someone whose first reaction to a news story that has nothing to do with them personally is “This Alex douche bag should not just be fired but should be thrown into jail.”
You, sir, clearly need something interesting in your own life to focus on — if not for your own good, then for the good of those around you that you are so quick to judge and condemn.
Comment by Phil — 6/12/2008 @ 6:42 am
It’s not child porn. It’s some radio host dressed up for Halloween with a doll stuffed to his crotch.
Comment by jen — 6/12/2008 @ 6:49 am
Why would you assume that one did? Go read the court opinions on the numerous law suits the Sanais filed in this stupid divorce. One side is clearly dirt.
Comment by jen — 6/12/2008 @ 6:54 am
I denounce all of you, in the strongest terms possible. You are just distracting from the hard work that Baracky needs to do, like learning how to keep fresh fruit in the house for his kids.
Comment by JD — 6/12/2008 @ 6:54 am
One side is clearly dirty.
Comment by jen — 6/12/2008 @ 6:56 am
#25
It’s not child porn. It’s some radio host dressed up for Halloween with a doll stuffed to his crotch.Comment by jen
What exactly is that supposed to depict that is so noble? Yes it is a doll stuffed to a crotch, we can see that. But what is it trying to tell us? That minors fellating on a priest is supposed to be funny?
Comment by love2008 — 6/12/2008 @ 6:58 am
As a citizen of this “once great nation” I would like to know how we can get this piece of crap Kozinski removed from the bench?
We have enough problems in this country without this sick bastard using judicial activism (which the 9th Circuit is infamous for) to set up his own personal pervert universe.
I know theres an ethics panel out there somewhere. I say we used it to the fullest extent posssible.
We need to take back our country from those who want to run it into the ground. Starting with Kozinski is a great place to begin.
Comment by Sick of all this — 6/12/2008 @ 7:09 am
Please tell me your wife walked in on you viewing one of the transexual ones… Oh the comedy that would have ensued…
Yeah, I’m a jerk. I’m hoping this isn’t news.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/12/2008 @ 7:16 am
What exactly is that supposed to depict that is so noble? Yes it is a doll stuffed to a crotch, we can see that. But what is it trying to tell us? That minors fellating on a priest is supposed to be funny?
If I may wax philosophical:
Stop and think for a minute about the point of the costume, in light of the ordinary image of the catholic church. The churce spends huge amounts of money and effort in developing a devout, completely celebate liturgy and spiritual environment. Think about all of the money the church has spent and continues to spend on image — the costumes, the churches, the music, the speeches, the prayers.
Now consider that humor, at its core, is about human weakness and failing and the way we in fact have very little control over our universe. Think about bathroom humor, banana-peel humor, dark comedy, slapstick comedy — it’s all focused on human efforts being betrayed by human failings and weakness.
Laughter is the basic, subconscious recognition that even in this desperate conflict between human will and nature, there is joy at some level.
This desperate conflict is at the heart of catholicism’s ongoing struggle against basic core human nature, by suppressing sexuality and human desire. It is personified in the image of a priest (the iconic symbol of catholic celebacy and selflessness) losing control, and doing something utterly animalistic and depraved, at a level below what the average “sinner” would ever sink to.
And we laugh, not because we think what the priest is doing is “good” or “noble” but because we recognize the underlying futility of the struggle of the church, and find that joy still exists somewhere in the church’s struggle itself, regardless of the outcome.
Comment by Phil — 6/12/2008 @ 7:18 am
As to the first picture, I think the guy on the right is dressed up as Elton John.
And I agree with Love2008. Any graphic depiction of sex with a minor, simulated or not, is obscene in the legal, punishable sense of “obscene”. It is not only my opinion, it is also the opinion of several jurisdictions which have punished it and the punishments have been upheld. Kozinski might be called upon to decide such cases too, if he does not already have.
Comment by nk — 6/12/2008 @ 7:21 am
one side is clearly dirty.
and i don’t care which side that is. drilling down into a nasty divorce case is something i used to do on a professional basis, i have no appetite to do it for free. the point is, mr. sanai perceived that the judge messed up.
perceptions are more powerful than reality. there is no objective reality in any event; the photon which bounced off an object, enabling you to image it, changed that object so that it is no longer what you see. the only reason we’re able to function is that the objects around us aren’t changed sufficiently to the point where we can no longer reliably interact with them. hope this clears things up, jen.
#30, the only way to get rid of an article iii federal judge is the impeachment and recall procedure set forth in the constitution. you need a majority of the house of representatives followed by 2/3 of the senate.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/12/2008 @ 7:22 am
P.S. I would have punched that guy on the nose if I had met him during our Halloween parade and the Chicago cops whom he called over to arrest me would probably have too.
Comment by nk — 6/12/2008 @ 7:26 am
You know, this isn’t the first time Patterico has written about Cyrus Sanai and Kozinski. Check out the 2005 archives.
http://overlawyered.com/2008/06/judge-kozinskis-web-site-and-cyrus-sanai/
Comment by Ted — 6/12/2008 @ 7:34 am
#35
I second that. This man must be made to know that we are not laughing with him. He is sick and needs immediate medical/mental appraisal. Or a friendly kick in the head.
Comment by love2008 — 6/12/2008 @ 7:37 am
i would have punched that guy on the nose…
and if he happened to be packing heat, what then? as a juror in his trial, i would be sympathetic to his estate over yours. murder off the table, maybe a manslaughter if there was a long interval between punch and shot and he were no longer threatened.
merely by walking the public streets, i do not consent to fight total strangers under the marquis of queensberry rules.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/12/2008 @ 7:38 am
Considering the number of jokes I’ve heard over the years, I would say yes. But you said the photo was child porn. It is not.
I don’t care about his clearly wrong perceptions. What his mother was doing with the aid of her attorney sons was abuse of the law. They got nailed for it.
Comment by jen — 6/12/2008 @ 7:40 am
You can still track him down and punch him out. Go ahead. Talk is cheap.
Comment by jen — 6/12/2008 @ 7:41 am
I would have punched that guy on the nose if I had met him during our Halloween parade and the Chicago cops whom he called over to arrest me would probably have too.
And had you been born on the other side of the globe, I imagine you would be calling for the head of a certain dutch cartoonist right now.
Comment by Phil — 6/12/2008 @ 7:54 am
And since you don’t see the humor in mocking the Catholic Church and it’s (admittedly minor) population of child molesting priests, such a thing shouldn’t be allowed?
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/12/2008 @ 7:54 am
I’m laughing with him.
It took widespread public outrage to force the Catholic Church to end its pro-molestation policies (shuffling molesters around so they could hit fresh victims with unaware families). It was only when the donations dried up that the church dealt with the problem instead of attacking the accusers.
How quickly have people forgotten? If we want to keep powerful institutions like the Catholic Church accountable, we need to be willing to ridicule them.
The idea that you can drag a man off to a mental institution for pictures like this–that’s just crazy and smacks of Soviet abuses of the mental health professions. Heaven forfend anyone should look at something you don’t approve of.
Comment by Daryl Herbert — 6/12/2008 @ 7:56 am
and if he happened to be packing heat, what then?
What, do you want to live forever?
Comment by nk — 6/12/2008 @ 7:56 am
what his mother was doing with the aid of her attorney sons was abuse of the law.
lol. i can’t speak to the sanai divorce. my own parents never divorced, although there were intermittent rocky spots. if they had, and i perceived at any time that dad was somehow taking advantage of mom, i would have weighed in (behind the scenes, not counsel of record) and ensured her a favorable outcome. abuse of the law is just another perception. if mr. sanai is not wanted by the police, not being investigated by the state bar and not being sued for a million bucks by someone else in the case, chances are he’s still operating within the rules of lawyering. those are some very expansive rules, and i would go right to the edge of them to benefit my clients.
they got nailed for it.
yeah, but nobody’s gonna remember that. they’re gonna remember this. he’s got judge kozinski’s head in his curio cabinet now.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/12/2008 @ 7:57 am
Because you are a racist.
Comment by JD — 6/12/2008 @ 7:59 am
Those who don’t understand why some of this (like the Halloween costume with the stuffed kid and the priest) is funny are in serious need of reading Stranger in a Strange Land, with particular emphasis on the part when Valentine Michael Smith is at the zoo and finally becomes fully “human” by understanding why we laugh at tragedy.
Comment by PatHMV — 6/12/2008 @ 8:00 am
And had you been born on the other side of the globe, I imagine you would be calling for the head of a certain dutch cartoonist right now.
I was not talking about the priest’s costume, moron, I was talking about the graphic depiction of child sex. Or do you think child pornography is ok if it’s “he’s doing it, not me”?
Comment by nk — 6/12/2008 @ 8:03 am
nk, it isn’t child pornography when there’s no real child involved, just a stuffed dummy. the real molester is actually the catholic church, not the guy at the halloween party.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/12/2008 @ 8:06 am
Yeah right, put him in jail… Brilliant… What about someone gaining access to your IE temp folder and fishing out some porn banners ! Aww, that would make you a real bad person! Then again, this guy ain’t no good for being a judge with some of those obscene pics :/
Comment by a_Scandal — 6/12/2008 @ 8:25 am
I can’t resist, since it hasn’t been mentioned:
Got Milk!
Comment by Another Drew — 6/12/2008 @ 8:39 am
I was not talking about the priest’s costume, moron, I was talking about the graphic depiction of child sex.
By talking about it (what ever “it” is, because at this point I have no idea), aren’t you distributing it?
Comment by Phil — 6/12/2008 @ 9:08 am
Another Drew:
That’s the spirit!I don’t know why so many commenters are having a cow.
I’ve been ruminating over the import of these pictures, and it is clear that the bloggers are in for seven fat years. Judge Kozinski is apparently already prepared to enter seven lean.
Comment by fat tony — 6/12/2008 @ 9:08 am
At the very least, for a federal judge to have put this type of material on a website accessible to the public brings the judiciary into disrespect.
Somehow, I can’t see Felix Frankfurter or Learned Hand putting a picture of a guy shitting his pants on a website.
Comment by John — 6/12/2008 @ 9:40 am
Agreed. How sad that a judge renowned for his towering intellect is exposed for a mooncalf.
Comment by fat tony — 6/12/2008 @ 9:43 am
The stained glass window does not show an act of fellatio, but a priest or bishop administering the Sacrament Of Confirmation to a child, which involves laying hands on the child’s head. A totally innocent action, but the angle, and the context make it look bad.
A window showing the same thing from a different angle can be seen here.here.
Comment by James Fulford — 6/12/2008 @ 9:57 am
The priest with the doll/dummy/child is clearly intended as humor. The first time I saw it - years ago - I not only thought it was funny, I thought it was very very funny. And I sent it off to some friends. It’s that kind of groaning humor, yet, but is it porn? No. Is it edgy humor? Very. Very edgy humor even. And where there’s edgy humor that usually a statement loaded with irony and social commentary.
Is it funny? Well, I’m going to submit myself to this court of public opinion as an expert on the subject of humor. Having written successful comedies should qualify me. And I humbly declare it funny. (see, the humbly qualifier adds irony to the statement therefore rendering my mildly obnoxious and arrogant self-appointment….oh forget it).
It is well know in the entertainment business that comedy doesn’t always export well. And often, within a culture, one man’s humor is another man’s smut/blasphemy/travesty.
Now we can get into a discussion on what is and what isn’t funny. (Something very French about that). And that could take volumes. (Freud wrote a book about it. Not funny.)
Off the bat, I want to weigh in with a few cursory comments. For one, the priest costume is not an indictment of all things Catholic, but a very specific indictment of something, unfortunately, that we see as Catholic; priests violating position of trust and having sex with children. The reality of is is awful. Not funny. So unfunny, well, it becomes profoundly disturbing. But, where you something deeply disturbing, you can usually find comedy. Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, Sam Kinison, Chris Tucker, Lewis Black - at their best had jokes that sprang from something at the very least - disturbing. In my own experience, I’ve made a number of “rape jokes” which I have to say, in a movie theatre, brought the house down. But just saying “rape joke” makes you wonder why and how it could possibly be funny. Rape isn’t funny. Rape is no laughing matter, but our anxiety about anything can be funny.
And it’s a challenge. I remember after 9-11 how will someone make this horrible even - funny? The two best examples I can remember - one was a cartoon of the Taliban being horrified to see that we would invade their country - and send their women to college.
And from The Onion titled “Hijackers Surprised to Find Themselves in Hell.”
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38673
Comment by Dale Launer — 6/12/2008 @ 10:02 am
Anything can be *funny* to somebody, Mr. Launer.
Some of my ancestors thought it hilarious to roast someone on a spit over a coal fire. If they wanted to be kind they would insert the spit through him instead of tying him on it.
Comment by nk — 6/12/2008 @ 11:18 am
OMG! u shud c this AWSEOME!!! new sight i foudn its called FARK!!! an d is hilaripus!!!
The real scandal here is that he never deleted the stuff everyone’s younger brother emailed them in 2002.
Comment by SEK — 6/12/2008 @ 11:34 am
Interesting, I came to this site from ATL as I wanted to know explicitly (sorry!) what the furor was about. Incidentally, apparently the site was a “family” (Kozinski’s) one, and his son has said some of the stuff was his (the son’s), which would make sense if some of these are the sort of “joke” things that get sent around…
What I saw (I didn’t look at everything, just a sampling) was disturbing (I found images making light of child abuse the most disturbing, even though they were the least explicit), but did not seem illegal, or racist, or sexist (in the sense that both men and women and “indeterminates” are objectified…) to the extent that might justify action (that is, if for instance a federal judge was marching with neo-nazis or kkk that’s certainly legal, but is extreme enough to raise much more serious questions of bias and judgment).
I find most of the stuff offensive, but I also support free speech even when it offends me, and think it very important to have an independent judiciary free from removal save for more serious matters — I’d rather a federal official were looking at legal images like this than doing any of the other things they seem to get up to, especially in D.C…. from the moral perspective (given some of the comments), why is it worse seeing legal images like this than to e.g. have an affair, as so many seem to do without being forced out of office…(I’m not saying people should be removed from office for adultery, I’m just making the comparison in terms of relative moral culpability).
Comment by df — 6/12/2008 @ 11:59 am
The stained glass joke (or at least a similar one) was used in an episode of Six Feet Under.
Comment by Peter Metcalfe — 6/12/2008 @ 12:50 pm
Hilarious. Kozinski is my hero. Thank God for people like him to counter the sick conservatives in this country.
Kudos to the judge, and let us make sure that the Bible Belt monsters lose the cultural war.
Comment by Cohen — 6/12/2008 @ 1:02 pm
I can’t even tell when something is sarcastic anymore…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/12/2008 @ 1:13 pm
Perhaps if we didn’t allow lawyers to be judges and legislators…
Comment by Angus Dei — 6/12/2008 @ 2:27 pm
The fact is, judges are human like everyone else. They do stupid things all the time. He isn’t the first judge to hold / enjoy /distribute porn or questionably funny “jokes” and he won’t be the last. As a previous poster wrote, “anything can be funny to somebody”. If people only knew what went on in the back rooms of the judiciary. Believe me, justice is not blind and never will be.
Comment by Yak — 6/12/2008 @ 2:36 pm
The internet was built on adult humor and porn. It’s an adult environment and has been that way since before .com was allowed on, before the web ( http:// ) was invented. If you can’t handle being an adult, get off of it.
I’m glad at least one judge understands free speech.
To those that have a problem with it, you’re Islam’s favorite useful idiots. You hate our freedom just like they do.
Comment by anon606 — 6/12/2008 @ 4:27 pm
Frankly, I see worse stuff on the ‘net than this most days before lunchtime. And that’s just on Jeff Goldstein’s site.
More seriously, though, I do see this kind of stuff floated around the Internet on a fairly regular basis; it passes for office humor, in some corners. And while I think it shows a bit of a lapse in judgment for Kozinski to have it on his personal website (whether he put it there or whether his son did), I think mountains are being made out of molehills.
Comment by BC — 6/12/2008 @ 4:43 pm
I am a retired Deputy Attorney General (Criminal Law Division). I am familiar with Alex, having litigated cases before him. He has long been renowned in our office as an egomaniac, who takes sadistic pleasure in humiliating our attorneys for little or no reason other than the prove he is the brightest guy in the room. In 35 years as a deputy district attorney or deputy attorney general, I have never appeared in front of a bigger ego in trial or appellate forums, which is saying plenty. And I’m betting this caper will not slow him down a bit. Publicity regarding his contacts with death row inmates a few years ago didn’t phase him. He is just another so-called conservative appointment that blew up in our faces like Souter, et al. Why liberals complain about Republican court appointments is beyond me . . .
Comment by Ray Brosterhous — 6/12/2008 @ 5:42 pm
‘I do see this kind of stuff floated around the Internet on a fairly regular basis; it passes for office humor, in some corners. And while I think it shows a bit of a lapse in judgment for Kozinski to have it on his personal website (whether he put it there or whether his son did), I think mountains are being made out of molehills.’
BUT, toe-tapping for teh gay is an abomination!
Comment by syn — 6/12/2008 @ 7:55 pm
I have had Ray Brosterhous’s (#39) view of Kozinski for a very long time. He was appointed for his politics and not his abilities. He is no judge I would want to appear before.
Comment by nk — 6/12/2008 @ 8:49 pm
*Ray Brosterhous’s (#69)*
Comment by nk — 6/12/2008 @ 8:59 pm
Oh so true about the connection between lousy lovers and porn lovers Sad to say I have experienced the inexperience or lack of initiative of a porn watcher.
Comment by lorna lopez — 6/12/2008 @ 10:09 pm
That is a photo of Frosty, Heidi and Frank, a popular
team of radio talkshow hosts in LA. They specialize in tasteless humor, talking mostly about sex, sex, sex, sex and sex. Oh and they also talk about sex.
Comment by Jack Bauer's Evil Brother — 6/12/2008 @ 10:11 pm
Of the stuff I could link to, none of it was obscene. Some of it is humorous, some is commentary, some is art, and some is just oddity. I think there is no issue here with respect to the images. By the way, the guy “cavorting” with the donkey, at least in the video I could link to, may have been the result of some guy being caught with his pants down while trying to relieve himself. (The beginning of this event isn’t on the video I saw.) As for the mp3 files purportedly on his site, that may be a different matter, entirely.
Comment by Ira — 6/12/2008 @ 10:34 pm
Further to my previous comment, there is nothing wrong with a judge also being a guy.
Comment by Ira — 6/12/2008 @ 10:35 pm
There isn’t anywhere in the United States where that first picture is legally obscene. Not one jurisdiction. You can lie to yourself about it if you like, if that helps you sleep at night.
Comment by JEB — 6/12/2008 @ 11:22 pm
There are a surprising number of posters who insist upon referring to their own sexual escapades. Not only that, but they all seem to have knowingly engaged in intercourse with porn viewers, regret it later, and blame the porn viewers, whom the compare unfavorably to their multiple other encounters. Oddly enough, each and every one is in total agreement with the others, who have remarkably similar (dare I say, identical) experiences.
Further, they all seem curiously uninterested in any other aspect of the discussions in various threads. In fact, they don’t appear interested in conversing at all, unless an echo constitutes dialogue. Frankly, I pity these disembodied souls. Their projection is inadequate to mask their obviously justified self-loathing.
Get thee to a nunnery. Seriously.
Comment by fat tony — 6/12/2008 @ 11:59 pm
And, yes, I DO know what a nunnery is, thank you.
Comment by fat tony — 6/13/2008 @ 12:04 am
The real scandal here is that he never deleted the stuff everyone’s younger brother emailed them in 2002.
[nod]
In my case, some of them were emailed by older relatives who had just discovered that there was more to the internet than AOL. They usually wanted me to confirm if it was real or ’special effects’.
Comment by rosignol — 6/13/2008 @ 5:28 am
That depiction is not graphic. None of what I’m seeing is illegal. Embarrassing for a federal judge, yes. Illegal, no. This seems like much ado about nothing, and yet this molehill may become a mountain.
Comment by Pablo — 6/13/2008 @ 5:29 am
Except for the mp3 sharing, that is. Seeing the RIAA go after a judge would be, uh, humorous.
Comment by Pablo — 6/13/2008 @ 5:30 am
fat tony
All we’re are trying to say is that you suck in bed.
Comment by syn — 6/13/2008 @ 6:07 am
gee, the vagina’s on the two “cows” are almost assuredly photoshopped, and I am also pretty certain that the muffs on the two women near the Bush sign are as well.
I can’t open some of the other things, but they appear to be things that were widely in circulation as early as 2001. for example, I recall that picture of the Bungee jumper with the load in his pants as far back as 01-02.
It shows that the judge, if he is indeed the down-loader here, has an R-rated sense of humor that is most commonly found in 17-25 yr old men. Like I said though, I cant see the other files, their might be some clearly porn stuff in there.
Im in no position to argue the legal structure of the definition of pornography with anyone here; but most of this seems less explicitly pornographic than sexually ironic.
Crude and debased for sure, but porno? Im not clear.
two women with their bush exposed near a Bush POTUS campaign sign is designed primarily to make you laugh. whether it does or not is a matter of taste.
Me? Im thinking the transposition of Bush’s last name with vaginal references stooped being amusing when it became a staple of pro-choice signs in ‘81.
Comment by tierney — 6/13/2008 @ 7:59 am
I’m amused at the Catholics that are up in arms over these images. Wouldn’t it make better sense to be outraged at the pedo priests who molested kids and the chain of command, all the way up to Pope JP II and most likely the current Pope, that used every trick they could think of to keep this scandal under the rug and keep those priests from being outed?
Comment by Sir Michael L. Foley — 6/13/2008 @ 8:07 am
Syn (sp?):
Only upon request
Comment by fat tony — 6/13/2008 @ 8:18 am
Haha.. the picture with the two women painted like cows are actually from a Dutch Playboy magazine from the nineties so what’s the fuzz all about..???
Comment by ronnie — 6/13/2008 @ 8:26 am
“[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.” Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 56 (1988) (opinion of Rehnquist, J.) (citations omitted)
Comment by Jon — 6/13/2008 @ 8:28 am
Exactly. Why are people so jumpy over cows and their moons?
Comment by fat tony — 6/13/2008 @ 8:32 am
I’m starting to like the guy more and more.
Comment by mediageek — 6/13/2008 @ 8:47 am
Most of this stuff has passed through my hard drive at one time or the other. It gets passed around the internet. People giggle at it (or not) and then move along.
The one of the minor fellating himself made me the most uncomfortable due to the social mores and possible legal repercussions, should it be found on my hard drive. But I imagine 99.9% of the people who have seen that image were intrigued and then moved on with their lives.
The U.S. has become a nation of whiners who desperately want to be outraged.
Comment by richpee — 6/13/2008 @ 9:36 am
The site and cache are gone but the web archive still has some files. This lists all pages in the web archive.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/alex.kozinski.com/*
Comment by susie — 6/13/2008 @ 9:55 am
Clearly a judge must be beyond reproach. Consider this Jesus character, for example. Dining with tax collectors. Getting prostitutes off the hook. Hanging out with low lifes all the time. The only people He ever came down on were the religious ones, especially those who deemed themselves God and therefore felt they could condemn others to Hell. He certainly wasn’t impartial. So let’s impeach him and put some appropriate conservative in his place. I hear there’s an accuser named Satan looking for a job. From the comments, obviously there are several here who are intimately familiar with him. I’m sure they could provide references.
Comment by Mark — 6/13/2008 @ 10:41 am
Most of this stuff has passed through my hard drive at one time or the other. It gets passed around the internet. People giggle at it (or not) and then move along.
The one of the minor fellating himself made me the most uncomfortable due to the social mores and possible legal repercussions, should it be found on my hard drive. But I imagine 99.9% of the people who have seen that image were intrigued and then moved on with their lives.
The U.S. has become a nation of whiners who desperately want to be outraged.
Comment by richpee — 6/13/2008 @ 9:36 am
Clearly a judge must be beyond reproach. Consider this Jesus character, for example. Dining with tax collectors. Getting prostitutes off the hook. Hanging out with low lifes all the time. The only people He ever came down on were the religious ones, especially those who deemed themselves God and therefore felt they could condemn others to Hell. He certainly wasn’t impartial. So let’s impeach him and put some appropriate conservative in his place. I hear there’s an accuser named Satan looking for a job. From the comments, obviously there are several here who are intimately familiar with him. I’m sure they could provide references.
Comment by Mark — 6/13/2008 @ 10:41 am
>> I agree with both of those comments
Comment by Gabriel — 6/13/2008 @ 11:13 am
Besides, what was the deal with all those women constantly washing his feet?
However, dining with tax collectors?! Too far!
Comment by fat tony — 6/13/2008 @ 11:45 am
FROSTY HEIDI & FRANK really rocked those Halloween costumes! FRANK ARMY!!
Comment by Ryan — 6/13/2008 @ 1:34 pm
It’s obviously quite important to be outraged in America. I mean, what would friends and neighbours think otherwise for heaven’s sake!? Must keep up appearances and not be seen to offend the God squad or corrupt/frighten the children, the animals and the old people.
Comment by pv — 6/13/2008 @ 4:59 pm
Thank you for providing the images and links, which have given me a better appreciation of the situation. I now understand that this involves grossout humor rather than pornography. If I had only had access to mainstram media reporting, I would not have known that. Please keep up the good work.
Comment by CJ — 6/13/2008 @ 9:59 pm
“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.”
Really? No idea? The guy found the one child in the area who doesn’t have any feet?
You’re a moron, Patterico.
Comment by Chet — 6/14/2008 @ 2:19 pm
You know what’s waaaay worse than a judge having porn on his computer?
Sanctimonious puritans who sneer in disgust at the stuff, then make sure to link to every example of it they can track down.
Who’s got issues?
Comment by B Russell — 6/14/2008 @ 2:23 pm
Shoot all u.s. cops-pigs in their fncking mouths now.
That’s the law.
Comment by kierzog — 6/14/2008 @ 3:36 pm
The first picture is frosty, heidi and frank
Comment by gerry — 6/14/2008 @ 6:49 pm
The priest/dummy child costume is part of a long tradition of humor poking fun at sinful clergy that dates back through Rabelais, Dante, and Chaucer.
Chaucer told a story about a friar, who was taken by an angel to see Hell. When he arrived in Hell, the friar was pleased to see no friars among the damned, and said so to the angel. The angel responded, “Oh, no, there are friars here. Just look!” and called to Satan to reveal the friars. Satan stood up, revealing his buttocks, and friars by the score began to stream from his anus.
Such humor wasn’t simple anti-Catholic animus. It was based on actual abuses of segments of the church hierarchy, in this case, that of some of the friars.
In the case of the costume, the humor is not that pederasty is funny, it’s the contrast between the behavior depicted and the expected behavior of a priest. There’s probably also a lot of schadenfreude at the predicament of the Church in having sheltered and protected the abusive priests.
Comment by Jon H — 6/14/2008 @ 8:25 pm
“The one of the minor fellating himself made me the most uncomfortable due to the social mores and possible legal repercussions, should it be found on my hard drive. ”
Difficult to say if he’s a minor, actually. About all you can say is that he’s skinny and not hirsute.
Comment by Jon H — 6/14/2008 @ 8:33 pm
“I’m amused at the Catholics that are up in arms over these images. Wouldn’t it make better sense to be outraged at the pedo priests who molested kids and the chain of command, all the way up to Pope JP II and most likely the current Pope, that used every trick they could think of to keep this scandal under the rug and keep those priests from being outed?”
Indeed. Rather than suggesting anti-Catholic bias on the part of Judge K, it suggests that he’d be sympathetic to Catholic laypeople. Which would be an issue if he were called on to judge a case against the Church hierarchy, but shouldn’t be a problem for the average Catholic who comes before him.
Comment by Jon H — 6/14/2008 @ 8:35 pm
None of the files were posted publicly. The website was private. There is nothing illegal about posting PRIVATE mp3’s. There is nothing illegal about having legal porn on a PRIVATE website.
What happened was a (disgruntled) lawyer, with a known vendetta towards a judge, CRACKED (illegal) his way into a private website and conservatives used this material as reason for the judge to recluse himself, then hold the lawyer as hero.
And this is the stuff that conservatives are proud of?
The bible does not say ‘by any means which justifies the end’. Put down the kool-aid for a minute and think. Judges should not be subject to personal vendetta’s or public pressure, for whatever reason or purpose. That is the most frightening aspect of this case.
Comment by du2vye — 6/15/2008 @ 1:47 pm
du2vye,
The kool-aid being drunk here is Lessig’s kool-aid, which you have guzzled thoughtlessly.
Judge Kozinski clearly thought this was a quasi-private site/server. But it was not. It was spidered by a Yahoo spider. Files were indexed on Google. Any member of the public could access any file with the proper URL. Any member of the public could find the proper URLs through search engines and http commands.
Comment by Patterico — 6/15/2008 @ 1:54 pm
If it offends you so much, don’t look!
I think you are all retards.
Comment by Ross — 6/16/2008 @ 9:10 am
It’s a real good think stupid is not terminal or I would fear for the majority of the previous posters. What a bunch of looser morans lol. You can do a search for everything listed and find it on the web. So you dont approve of his sense of humor… Get over it twits. This is a free country and you freaking bible thumping prude jerks need to stop trying to convert it to a bloody theocracy. That wont werk here any better then it works for the muslims.
Comment by logical one — 6/16/2008 @ 4:39 pm
#96 THATS RIGHT, RYAN!
People need to lighten up. Ultra conservatism and political correctness are distroying this country. Rather than spending all your time being shocked & horified about what everyone else is doing, you need to start teaching your kids to speak Chinese & Arabic!
Comment by Len — 6/16/2008 @ 4:51 pm
Don’t people have better things to do? With all thats going on in the country you have to think. So what if this guy did have porn. Who cares. If he didnt. Who cares. Theres more to life than ruining other peoples lives.
Comment by Benjamin — 6/16/2008 @ 9:51 pm
Having read all this stuff I am led to conclude that everyone is clean, except of course Kozinski. As for Judge Kozinski, he deserves to be lynched, or stoned maybe as under the law of Charia. Repeat, I am led to conclude. However if you think about it there is something disturbing, not about Judge Kozinski, whose humor is about average, but about all these Holy Joes, Patterico being N° 1, who are crazy to read about and, if possible, see, porn, as long as they can say to themselves they are condemning it. The Pharisians, as described in the New Testament, would be fairly good proof that this type of person has been around for a long time. A woman taken in adultery? Let’s stone her, or as we do today lynch her in the media, blacken her reputation, get her kicked out of her job (which is what Judge Kozinski is being threatened with). No human feeling, no understanding, no real decency on the part of you and your fellow lynch gang Mr Patterico. No charity in the Christian sense of the word. By your name I would think you are an ex-Italian catholic back somewhere. You’ve kept the condemnation, you’ve left the charity. What a pity.
Comment by ross dohan — 6/17/2008 @ 1:08 am
PS To pontificating Potterico. I’m sure you’re a good man deep down inside. Just try not to hurt other people with your silly blog. For example, avoid kicking them when they’re already down
Comment by ross dohan — 6/17/2008 @ 1:19 am
It is not nakedness that is pornographic. To suggest a man, woman, even a tranny naked is an obscenity is both a mental problem and plain wrong. Hello, this is 2008 not the catholic witch hunt days or is it? To avoid minors seeing the pics, (they need to be kept in the dark about the human body and reproductive or sex for entertainment until they find out for themselves) I guess that is why the site is private. The judge’s privacy has been compromised imho and the offenders should be punished. But then I’m not a superstitious religious freak.
Sex with animals, rape, certain sex acts (gang bangs, kids etc) are porn. To keep the net honest and open, concentration should be to clean up the real porn rather than distract with nonsense.
Topless female football in Vienna - porn?
Private sites are just that - private. Behind closed doors is the equivalent. How would the self righteous bigots feel with someone looking through their bedroom window I wonder?
Comment by Openmind — 6/17/2008 @ 2:38 am
Can someone tell all the Hillary Clinton supporters to spend more time delivering pizza’s and making money and put the bong down?
The judge was subjected to gotcha journalism at its worst.
None of the pics I’ve seen here are pornographic.
Even the unspoken “Got Milk” joke (hello, dimwits, the unspoken tag line for the cowgirls) may be considered ill-advised, but not pornographic.
Ribald to some, tasteless to others.
This simply reminds me of the caterpillar on the french fry. Drew Carey for the pop-culture illiterate.
A great judge has now become the target of the Hillary Clinton mindset - attack, attack, attack anyone who isn’t wearing the badge of Stalinism on his shoulder.
Judge, if you’re listening, fight this injustice. Do not cower or hide. Stand as tall and as dignified as you have ever been.
Do not let them Bork you. Do not give them that satisfaction. America needs you to show them what hero’s are by defying such political witch hunts.
Not to mention what a strange concept like a sense of humor is…
Comment by Jeff Barea — 6/17/2008 @ 6:11 am
I have to wonder how so many people can rail against this person as being grotesquely perverse and someone who should be jailed, when the makers and actors of the “American Pie” films, the people who’ve watched them, and the people who’ve bought the videos of them, walk the streets freely.
The humor presented is of the same quality and objectionability. Surely, if a person should be jailed for this, they should be likewise imprisoned for having ever watched or owned a copy of “American Pie”.
Comment by Confused — 6/17/2008 @ 9:59 am
I find it amusing that this judge has come under attack for having porn or sexual content on his personal computer. You would think that a judge would have more maturity, professionalism, and discretion for his personal actions. It’s appropriate that in this day of judicial corruption that another seemingly hypocritical lawmaker is under the microscope.
Comment by Karl S — 6/17/2008 @ 10:26 am
anyone that thinks the judge’s content is grounds for any kind of sanction is pushing conservative morals on others. 95% of his content is comprised of jokes I’ve received in chain joke e-mails in the past. This is all taken out of context, leave him alone and get a sense of humor people, if he had one episode of south park or SNL there would be more offensive material than all of this content combined. Get a life. No to censors! 1st amend!
Comment by dmarcob — 6/17/2008 @ 11:01 am
So in conclusion, theres no “there” there. Now lets all move on.
Comment by love2008 — 6/17/2008 @ 11:39 am
Please refrain from using the term “Bork” when referring to the movement to censor a sitting Judge who by the very content of his website should (and did) recuse himself from sitting on the trial before him, as well as any other trial which relates to obscenity. It is laughable that the very person who would use this term to defend this obviously compromised jurist, was probably one of the people who called for the campaign to reject Robert Bork as a candidate for the Supreme Court.
Comment by FreeCalifornia! — 6/17/2008 @ 11:43 am
First of all, to #117, judges aren’t lawmakers. See, the legislative branch of our government is the lawmaking branch. The judicial branch, of which judges are members, interpret the law. I may as well mention that the executive branch enforces the laws. It’s a system we have called checks and balances. Each branch has some control over the process so that one branch does not end up with all of the power. It’s a system designed to prevent dictatorships, etc.
Second, also to #117, why should a judge not be allowed to find humor in something you may find offensive? If he is able to prove he is a fair judge by time and time again meting out justice in a fair and unbiased manner, why should we not allow him a sense of humor? Personally, I find that someone who finds this type of material humorous more qualified than some stuffy judge who is out of touch with reality. This is a judge who knows that people shit themselves, that they fellate themselves, let themselves be painted like a cow and photographed, or let photographs be taken of their unclothed crotchal regions. He is worldly. That seems like an invaluable asset, especially for a judge. I may not find these images funny per se, but I certainly do not find them offensive. I can see the humor in them, I just find myself unimpressed with the humor.
The one problem that I see in all of this: he either does not understand technology very well or was unable to think this plan of posting reputation-damaging images on a public server all the way through. If he doesn’t understand that this was a public server, then I don’t exactly trust his ability to preside over cases which involve similar technology. On the other hand, if he knew the server was accessible to the public, why did he not realize that someone might access the files and find them unsavory and why would he post personal files that were likewise publicly accessible? The actual content has nothing to do with it, it’s the inability for him to judge other peoples’ reactions should the files be found. My guess is that he did not realize that anyone could access the files. Either way, it shows a lack of knowledge or judgment, both of which are necessary for a man in his position.
Comment by B. Franklin — 6/17/2008 @ 12:32 pm
Since when did it become illegal in this country to have a sense of humor? I am a 100% social conservative Catholic in my personal life, probably more so than these puritanical book-burning jerks that want to be the thought police. Although I cringed at a few of the pictures, I was able to see the humor in them and found them to be in no way pornographic. Hey, I’m a lawyer too and I enjoy racist jokes. I guess I’m not allowed to tell any of them either.
Comment by DannyK — 6/17/2008 @ 8:38 pm
One more thing: These bible-banging idiots are really costing the Republicans votes these days by going around and getting offended at everything. Get a sense of humor, for God’s sake! I say it again, I grew up as a strict, traditional Catholic and I am offended that the morality police thinks they can decide what someone is allowed to have on their own peronal computer. You worry about how you lead your own life and leave others alone.
Comment by DannyK — 6/17/2008 @ 8:42 pm
A lot of you seem to have missed the point that Sanai is hardly an innocent whistle-blower for truth, justice and the American Way. In fact, his intent is deliberate, vindictive and malicious, consistent with his legal history. The LA Times has very likely committed libel and perhaps conspiracy in the way it has publicized the story.
It’s quite clear from the examples shown that there is no intent to distribute pornographic images. Calling these images pornographic is pure value judgement. If you haven’t seen worse in email from your friends, you’re really pretty naive.
Comment by bobdog — 6/18/2008 @ 4:08 am
I have two opinions, one as an IT professional and one as a nosy person. Enjoy my two cents!
I’ve look through the material provided and say that I have to agree with Ms. Tiffany. LA Times had it wrong, this is a smear campaign by Sania and I think that puke needs to be disbarred, sued and possible prosecuted at both state and federal level as the descriptions indicate that he accessed a PRIVATE site that lacked needed security.
The Judge needs to take a couple of classes. Something on Website building and another on cyber security (I recommend Security+ study guides).
It looks to me that his site had the minimum security of being hiden from public view for anyone who went directly to the URL, but lacked a way to authenticate legal valid users. Which allowed Sanai to breech his security using such a basic exploit most hackers would have missed it due to not believing security that low was worth their time and talents. But the fact that it was not publicly viewable without direction should be enough for charges I would hope. I’ll be watching the US and California attourney’s offices to see if they prosecute or hang the judge out to dry.
Comment by Tim Pickard — 6/18/2008 @ 4:38 am
My last thoughts.
Looking through the posts here, if they are representative, the judge is crime-free by a majority. A triumph for free thought, free speech, freedom of expression, freedom from extraordinary censorship on Internet, adulthood and intelligence. Perhaps any ensuing action will give victory for privacy too. And a rap on the knuckles for those who would suppress freedom.
Moral? Maybe - if you find genitalia and nipples obscene or offensive, either stay away from Internet or get nanny control software for yourself. Google has that facility for searches already.
Google.com home page - preferences next to the search button, SafeSearch Filtering. Select strict filtering and save preferences. There you go.
Good luck judge.
Comment by Openmind — 6/18/2008 @ 7:53 am
The pack of baying dogs will soon run themselves out, then seek fresh meat. This is nothing more than thoughtless exploitation by persons having no goal other than to seek personal revenge, gain, or amusement at another’s expense. He’s twice - no I take that back - he’s worth ten of you who delight in his misfortune.
Comment by Lawyer Don — 6/18/2008 @ 1:16 pm
So he has a South Park sense of humor. Big deal. Shame on the LA Times for even going forward with the story. For the people who are calling for his head, with a sense of irony I give the following passage:
The Gospel according to St. Matthew (7):
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Now think about if this Sanai character had targeted you instead of the judge, and published some facet of your life in the Times that you would have rather kept hidden, using incendiary language to increase the damage to your reputation. Then reread line 5 and decide if it applies to you. Then, if you decide you want to keep throwing stones, be my guest.
(Snark): Was I the only one who thought the post by the Reverend (Rev. Dr. E Buzz Miller — 6/12/2008 @ 6:01 am) calling the judge a “sick piece of shit” sadly indicative of the state of the clergy? It’s a sad day when servants of G-d use profanity. (I think it’s fairly obvious that that poster is probably not a Reverend. However, I think it’s interesting that he chose to use that handle to assert moral authority, given some of the images on the page.) (/Snark)
Comment by Chris — 6/19/2008 @ 12:42 am
Frankly I find many of the comments here far more offensive that what he had on his file server.
Comment by Vidar — 6/21/2008 @ 3:50 am
ohh, haha haha i’dont know that i’ll say..
Comment by Komik Resimler — 8/25/2008 @ 8:20 am
it’s very funyy :S
Comment by Gebelik Doğum — 8/25/2008 @ 8:22 am
they’re not nice :@
Comment by beceri oyunları — 8/25/2008 @ 8:24 am