Kozinski’s Stash, and a rather strange case

Prof. Bainbridge gives one of the more level headed assessments of the Kozinski pr0n stash affair.

All of which poses several questions, in no particular order

* Does libertarian = libertine?
* Given the amount of porn available on the web (or so I’m told), why would anybody need their own stash these days?
* Who stashes their porn on the internet? Other than porn stars?
* Kozinski long has been regarded as one of the smartest guys on the federal bench. Do we need to rethink that?
* Does Kozinski know that transvestite judge?
* Did Issac’s line of fetish porn include zoophilia with agricultural themes?
* Would Kozinski have gotten too much enjoyment out of this trial? I imagine the following scene. Defense counsel: “Your honor, I think we’ve seen enough.” Prosecutor: “I agree.” Kozinski: “Just one more minute …. ahhhh.”
* Do we now know why Kozinski fought so hard against proposals by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to install a computer monitoring system in federal courthouse offices? What’s he do when he’s got time on his hands at work?
* If Kozinski goes ahead with hearing the Issacs trial, he should keep his hands in plain sight at all times. Pocket pool is right out.
* Kozinski told the LAT that he didn’t think any of the material he posted on his website would qualify 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.” Speaking of “odd and interesting,” I wonder if he ever read 12 So.2d 305?

12 So.2d 305 is the citation of a 1943 Florida case called Lason v. State, the factual basis of which is definitely not work safe.

There is no question about the facts in either case. Aside from the evidence produced by the State, the accused testified as a witness in his own behalf, that he was seventy-six years of age; that he had not experienced an erection in many years, but that on several occasions he had indulged in venereal affairs with each of the girls named in the information when both girls were present; that in accomplishing these affairs he had licked and extended his tongue into the genital orifice of each of the girls and had allowed and permitted each of the girls to take his sexual organ into her mouth, the result of which he testified was ‘pleasurable’.

This was the abominable and destestable crime against nature over which the court got very worked up. The appeal was made on the grounds that the crime involved only acts per rectum and not per os (so the opinion refers to the techniques involved) The judges rejected the appeal, and in no uncertain terms.

A discussion of the loathsome, revolting crime would be of no edification to the people, nor interest to the members of the bar. The creatures who are guilty are entitled to a consideration of their case because they are called human beings and are entitled to the protection of the laws.

Much might be written concerning the history and prevalence of the crime in various times and in different countries, and of the methods of its commission, as well as the baneful effects which it has had upon the mental, moral and physical conditions of those peoples amongst whom it is and has been prevalent. It is sufficient to say here, however, that all unnatural forms and methods of coitus have proven themselves detrimental to both health and morals.

Oral sex very bad. But apparently the judges didn’t see anything wrong with the fact that the two girls who participated in the abominable crime against nature were 11 and 13. Sixty years ago, apparently, it was fine to be a child molestor. As long as you didn’t do it per os or per rectum.

Tags: Kozinski, pornography cases, sodomy