E-mail
Print
RSS
G-bookmarks
Live
TechnoratiIn one of the nation’s most high profile cases involving the prosecution of obscenity, pro-family groups and other commentators believed that they had a solid case against a Los Angeles advertizing agency owner who produced and sold thousands of what one attorney described as “the most extreme [pornographic videos] ever been put on trial.”
That is, until the case was temporarily suspended this week after the presiding judge was revealed to have a mountain of obscene pornographic videos on his personal web page.
Although state prosecutors spoke of a significant “conflict of interest” as they requested a 48-hour stay, pro-family groups have called for nothing less than the removal of Ninth Circuit Court Chief Justice Alex Kozinski from the case.
“As of this morning, he [has] yet to recuse himself from the current case involving sexual fetish videos,” the Family Research Council said in a statement.
“[Americans], like FRC, believe that Kozinski is ill-equipped to try an obscenity case when he clearly does not understand the definition of obscene. We call for his recusal in this case and a reexamination of his fitness as chief of one of the most important courts in the entire nation,” the group added.
But perhaps the most incredulous aspect of the recent case, according to pro-family groups, is Kozinki’s apparent indifference to the controversy of having a web page containing obscene pornographic images.
"Is it prurient?" Kozinski asked, according to the Los Angeles Times, which revealed the existence of the images and videos on the judge’s Web site. "I don't know what to tell you... It's part of life. This is a funny joke.”
A joke, however, that few Americans find funny, the FRC said.
The case, which involves Ira Isaacs, who is charged with obscenity for selling movies depicting bestiality and fetishes involving feces and urination, could prove challenging for prosecutors to effectively put on trial.
Kozinski called Thursday for an ethics panel to investigate his own conduct and said he would fully cooperate in any investigation, according to The Associated Press . He has acknowledged the sexual content on his personal Web site and claimed the images were not obscene. The California judge, however, also told the legal Web site abovethelaw.com that he doesn’t remember “putting some of that stuff” there.
"The problem with obscenity is no one really knows what it is. It's relatively simple to paint something as an artistic effort even if it's offensive,” said Jean Rosenbluth, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at University of Southern California, as reported by AP.
In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that work cannot be considered obscene if it is deemed to have “literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”
The case will be relegated to a temporary pause until prosecutors decide how to further proceed.
tpique1 »
Agree: 
Disagree: 
