The obvious hypocrisy of this particular guy, who happens to be the highest-ranked judge in the US who does not sit on the Supreme Court, getting caught out with a bunch of his favorite fetish porn on display for everyone to see. Kozinski may be a champion of first-amendment rights, and kudos to him for the stance he has taken on that front. But he's a f*cking crazy wingnut from the Scalia-and-Posner school on every other front, and he habitually claimed the high moral ground in his decisions. Perhaps not so much anymore.

Did you even read the story? Tranny-striptease, pubic-shaving, masturbation, and hardcore photos are not "silly images" that are "just described to sound inexcusably out-of-bounds." He didn't have just one or two pictures, he had whole picture sequences (multiple 'photosets' in the industry jargon). Maybe it was garden-variety Hustler pictorial stuff- I'm not suggesting that he had kiddie porn or actual bestiality photos- but make no mistake, this wasn't just a few odd furry cartoons or punchline captions, it was a well-manicured porno collection.

But have it your way. The photos he had posted were 'jokes.' Because pictures of women being degraded are 'funny.' It's not as though they have minds of their own.

None of that changes the fact that they were posted on the internet in violation of Federal copyright law, which Kozinski is sworn to uphold.

Posted at June 12, 2008 6:56 PM in response to Today's Must Read

I don't know about you, but after some of the things I've seen on the internet, I'm pretty jaded about what is prurient and what isn't (Rotten.com and 2g1C both come immediately to mind, along with some of the more classic 'shock' photos which I won't name here). I more-or-less agree with your underlying point though; if there is anyone on the government payroll who should be forced to view a lot of porn, a federal circuit judge ain't a bad choice. "I know it when I see it" is a lot easier to interpret when you've seen it all.

Posted at June 12, 2008 12:37 PM in response to Today's Must Read

Apart from the obvious hypocrisy, I find it especially poignant that the defendant in the case Kozinski was hearing could escape liability on the grounds that his works have sufficient artistic value to avoid the 'obscentiy' label, but the judge has openly admitted to the unlicensed hosting of copyrighted files on the public internet. In his own circuit, in music industry lawsuits at least, hosting is equivalent to willful copyright infringement-- although there is a developing split as to whether the so-called "making available" theory is sufficient to establish infringement liability.

Copyright plaintiffs may elect statutory damages for each work distributed without a license- 17 U.S.C 504 says that statutory damages range from $200 to a max of $150,000 for EACH FILE. A plaintiff proving willful infringement can
demand the maximum fine. Since Kozinski claims innocence, a court might push his fine to the low end of the range, but if he had 100 different photos of man-on-cow love, it could easily cost him 20 grand.

And I bet he had a lot more than 100 photos.

Posted at June 12, 2008 12:26 PM in response to Today's Must Read