Cow Porn Fancier Judge Suspends Trial
A JUDGE has suspended a long-awaited obscenity trial in the US after he was embroiled in revelations that he had posted sexually explicit material on the internet.
Judge Alex Kozinski told the Los Angeles Times he was unaware that photographs posted on his personal website could be viewed by the public and that he had removed the pictures.
Judge Kozinski, 57, was reported to have posted a photograph of nude women on all fours painted to look like cows, while a video on the site showed a semi-naked man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal.
The judge agreed to the prosecution’s request for a 48-hour delay so the Justice Department could look into possible issues of prejudice in the case, in view of the judge’s actions.
The Times reported that Judge Kozinski had blocked access to the site after being made aware that it could be viewed by the public.
He was quoted by the Times as saying he did not believe any of the images on the site qualified as obscene.
“Is it prurient? I don’t know what to tell you,” he said. “I think it’s odd and interesting. It’s part of life.”
Judge Kozinski, who is chief judge of the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, is widely viewed as a champion of free speech who once led a successful legal bid to remove filters that blocked access to internet pornography on computers used by 9th Circuit staff.
The Times said he declined to comment when asked if he felt he should now excuse himself from hearing the trial of Ira Isaacs, a Los Angeles-based filmmaker accused of selling criminally obscene sexual fetish videos depicting bestiality and defecation.
Isaccs, 57, faces up to 20 years in jail and fines of $US1 million ($1.06 million) if convicted on multiple counts of importing or transporting obscene material for sale or distribution.
Prosecutors say Isaacs sold three films between May 2004 and October 2006.
“These movies are not considered to be typical or ordinary pornography or consensual sex between adults,” US Department of Justice attorney Kenneth Whitted told a jury.
The films were “vile, perverted and profane to such an extent they are outside your community standards”.
Defence lawyer Roger Jon Diamond said in his opening statement that the films being peddled by Isaacs were “offensive and shocking”.
“They are disgusting, I would say, to most people,” Mr Diamond said.
But Isaacs was a “shock artist” who would testify to the artistic merits of the films, he said.
While neither side disputes the facts of the case, jurors will be asked to decide whether or not the films are obscene under federal law.
Any film found to have serious “literary, scientific or artistic value” does not meet the federal standard of obscenity established by a 1973 Supreme Court ruling.
(AFP)
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
that’s mad
June 12th, 2008 at 4:37 am“Led a successful legal bid to remove filters that blocked access to internet pornography on computers used by 9th Circuit staff”
A champion of the people.
Looks like the guys getting 20 years for it, unless the jury happen to all be modern artists.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:03 amNow we know what’s wrong with the 9th Court. Like we haven’t already figured out the 9th Circuit was filled with weirdo genetic defects yet?
Impeach this prick. Then toss his sick ass in prison. Let him trade porno with Bubba the macho homo for a while.
I swear this story is a metaphor for judges in American.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:15 am