Comments on: Exclusive: Kozinski’s Porn — Images from Judge Alex Kozinski’s Web Site

By: beceri oyunları

beceri oyunları — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:24:48 +0000

they’re not nice :@

By: Gebelik Doğum

Gebelik Doğum — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:22:27 +0000

it’s very funyy :S

By: Komik Resimler

Komik Resimler — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:20:32 +0000

ohh, haha haha i’dont know that i’ll say..

By: Vidar

Vidar — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:50:10 +0000

Frankly I find many of the comments here far more offensive that what he had on his file server.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:42:16 +0000

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)

By: Lawyer Don

Lawyer Don — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:16:40 +0000

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.

By: Openmind

Openmind — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:53:58 +0000

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.

By: Tim Pickard

Tim Pickard — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:38:25 +0000

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.

By: bobdog

bobdog — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:08:54 +0000

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.

By: DannyK

DannyK — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:42:56 +0000

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.