L.A. NOW

Southern California -- this just in

« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home | Next Post »

The Kozinski files: two more views

June 16, 2008 |  4:33 pm

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 

Advertisement










Video