The Kozinski files: two more views

For the better part of a week the discussion has been about whether Judge Alex Kozinski was wrong to keep pornographic images on a web site.  Elsewhere, other conversations about the brouhaha are taking place.

From Overlawyered.com comes the opinion that while Kozinski was indiscreet, one should note that the revelations about the sexual images came from Cyrus Sanai, a lawyer with whom Kozinski has bumped heads in the past.

And posted today on Patterico.com, a letter from Kozinski's wife, Marcy Tiffany, who takes issue with the facts as presented in the story:

My name is Marcy Tiffany. I have been married to Alex Kozinski for over thirty years and we have raised three sons together. First, let me thank you for making the effort to discover the truth about what happened, and for giving me an opportunity to respond to the stories that have been circulating about Alex.

(skip)

One especially egregious misrepresentation is that there was a “video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal.” In subsequent articles, including one in the S.F. Chronicle, this has been described as a “bestiality” video. In fact, as you reveal on your Blog, it is a widely available video of a man trying to relieve himself in a field when he is attacked by a donkey he fights off with one hand while trying to hold up his pants with the other. I would note that there is a version of this video on YouTube that apparently aired on the Fox channel. Crude and juvenile, for sure, but not by any stretch of the imagination is it bestiality. The fact is, Alex is not into porn -- he is into funny -– and sometimes funny has a sexual character.

The tiny percentage of the material that was sexual in nature was all of a humorous character. For example, the “women’s crotches” was one of the many “camel toe” series that is widely available on the net. The insidious effect of these misleading descriptions is that even many of those who have come to Alex’s defense have expressed the view that judges are entitled to look at “porn” if they choose, as if that’s what was really going on here, when it is not.

There's more here, and you can be sure there will be even more on the topic to come.

-- Veronique de Turenne

Comments

[w3]

The images I saw that were purported to come from the Kozinski website were not "pornographic." I guess by continuing to assert this opinion as fact, the LA Times can avoid explaining its responsibility in this entire "story."

The LA Times should be ashamed. News is supposed to be the reporting of facts. When Scott Glover and his editor decided to describe "the donkey video" as a “video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal,” they surely must have known that they were embellishing the truth and leading their readers to believe something about the video which was not true.

Your editors now tell us that Kozinski, and I suppose the rest of us, should be saying, "so what?" to this entire ordeal, but is that the response LA Times would like its readers to give to all its front page stories? Is the editorial editor taking a dig at the news editor? Is there some internal fight at the Times that is beginning to be aired publicly? Or is the editorial, coupled with this blog post, a continued effort to assert the porn opinion as fact so that you can further justify being led by the nose by a half-wit attorney with an ax to grind?

[Gordo]

In light of the well written rebuttal by Mrs. Kozinski, don't you feel a little ashamed about the conduct of the L.A. Times in this matter? Your paper got suckered & scammed by a loser lawyer with a chip on his shoulder, but the LA Times took it even further making up bogus innuendo of their own and timing it just right to screw up a trial and waste hundreds of people's time. Way to go! Journalism at its best!

[Alex]

Several years ago I permanently cancelled my subscription to the LA Times when the paper chose to release (and timed the release) of inflammatory information about Governor Schwarznegger with the clear intent of affecting the outcome of an election. Having just read the letter posted by Judge Kozinski's wife describing the behavior of the LA Times and its reporter Scott Glover, my decision to never have anything again to do with this newspaper appears all the more justified. Mr. Glover's story, its glaring omission of so many important facts surrounding this matter and the manipulated timing of the story's release is shocking and reprehensible, and the LA Times should be completely embarrassed by yet another example of unprofessional and slimy journalism. How can the editors of this newspaper tolerate this type of journalism?

[Harry]

If that editorial is the best you can muster in response to the hogwash you plastered on your front page then good riddance: subscription canceled. How about a retraction/correction elaborating on the falsities and omissions of Glover's article?

[Brock]

Disgusting, disgusting, disgusting.

There is simply no other way to describe the conduct of the LA Times and Scott Glover. Were Judge Kozinski not a public figure, there is no question this would constitute libel. I am astounded that, following the revelation of the clear-cut facts regarding this issue, you would call the files "pornographic". They were not pornographic; you know it, Scott Glover knows it, everyone who has viewed them knows it. And yet you frame it as a discussion over whether Kozinski was "wrong" to post pornographic files. Truly disgusting. I wish that journalistic integrity was something that were internalized and tangible, yet it is clear it is not, at least at your sorry excuse for a newspaper. The LA Times should be issuing retractions and apologies to its readers and victims; if it continues to behave in this - yes - disgusting manner, its readers should take action. In addition, Scott Glover has lost all credibility as a reporter and should be fired and never work in this industry again.