Jurists gone wild

A federal judge in Los Angeles has recused himself from a obscenity trial after a trove of dirty pictures were found squirreled away on his personal web site. Sounds scandalous, no? But the reality is both more complicated and more interesting.

First, the case over which judge Alex Kozinski is no longer presiding. The USA v. Ira Isaacs obscenity trial is not your typical pørnography case. Isaacs doesn’t consider himself a pørn merchant, he’s a self-styled “shock artist.” He creates videos meant to horrify and disgust their viewers, not to get them hot and bothered. They’ve been called the most extreme videos on the Internet, and that’s all I’m going to say about them. (Want to know more? Start by Googling “coprophagy videos” — but don’t blame me if you hurl.)

Now here comes da judge. Kozinski apparently stored a large cache of NSFW images and videos on Alexkozinski.com. (Don’t bother looking for them, he’s purged the site. But you can find links to some of the notable ones and a list of the rest here.) It has been described as “some pretty intense sexually explicit material.” Here’s a sampling:

One photo features two naked women in a field on all fours, painted to look like Holsteins (or, if you’re a hopeless geek like me, Gateway boxes — though if Gateway boxes had looked more like these, it would probably still be an independent company).

Another photo features two women sans undergarments, hiking up their skirts while a sign behind them reads “Bush for President.” There are a few visual gags concerning Catholic priests and altar boys, and a video of a donkey in a state of excitement chasing a fat guy with his pants around his knees. (It ends just as he is cornered by the priapic beast.)

But wait, there’s more. According to the large index of files on Kozinksi.com, the judge had posted copies of Monty Python’s “The Lumberjack Song” and Tom Lehrer’s “Hanukah in Santa Monica.” He’s posting MP3s? Quick, alert the RIAA!

This is “pretty intense” and “sexually explicit” material? Maybe in some circles. But on the planet where I live, this is run-of-the-mill high school locker room humor. In fact, Kosinzki has said the site is maintained primarily by his son Yale. That explains a lot.

Finally, there’s the source of this story:  Cyrus Sanai, a Los Angeles attorney who has been publicly feuding with Kozinski for years. He found Kozinski’s cache six month ago and has been peddling this story ever since. Eventually, the LA Times reporter covering the Isaacs case took the bait. Sanai’s purpose wasn’t to reveal a conflict of interest in the judicial system, it was to humiliate Kozinski. He seems to have succeeded.

But whether what Kozinski or his son posted online is relevant to the Isaacs trial is just one of many thorny issues raised here. 

In an age where ISPs are taking on the roles of Net censors, defining what is and isn’t “obscene” or “pørnographic” is a terribly important question. And if we require judges to be pure of heart and mind, why not juries? How about the other officers of the court? The spectators in the courtroom? Those who read about the trial on the Net and in the papers? Hell, let’s just check everybody’s hard drives, and their bookshelves too while we’re at it.

The material Issacs created and Kozinski posted do have one thing in common: You may not approve of it, but nobody’s forcing you to look at it. And if you do choose to look at it, well, doesn’t make you just as guilty?

Should the Net be obscene and not hurt? Or is filtering objectionable content a necessary evil? Post your thoughts below or email them to me: cringe (at) infoworld (dot) com. But please, spare me any Ira Isaacs videos, I have a weak stomach.

Think you’ve got the right stuff to pass our tech quizzes? They’re not as easy as they look:

• The InfoWorld News Quiz

• Test Your Geek IQ

• Test Your Network Security IQ