First let me say that I know Alex Kozinski and that I like him a lot. That said, he is understandably in some hot water over what the LA Times
describes as "Obscenity trial suspended after judge said he posted sexually explicit materials." Personally, while disappointing, I don't think that this is a huge deal no matter how strange the film clips that were found on his computer were. He has offered to resign from the case and it is up to the prosecution and defense to make that decision. The same issue can be raised in future cases if it again proves to be relevant. Personally, I think that Alex can divorce his personal opinions from what the law is. Second, I take him at his word that he merely kept on his computer some of the weird things that people sent him over time. After all, it seems only natural for someone who is having to deal with the bizarre and disturbing case that is before him to investigate these issues on his own somewhat. (Obviously, he must keep his opinions based only on the material presented to him in court.) While I suppose that people are likely to draw the worst possible conclusions, it is possible that he only kept these strange pictures for curiosity reasons. I guess that I can't understand anyone really finding pictures of women dressed as cows sexually interesting, so because of that I am willing to give his claim more weight. He is correct to refer to those pictures as "degrading." I just hope for him that this recedes into the background quickly.
UPDATE 1: Above the Law has this
email exchange with Kozinski:
David: I can't comment on the trial.
As for the other matter, the server was maintained by my son, Yale, for the entire family. Pictures, documents, music, audio and other items of personal and family interest are stored there so various family members can reach them from wherever they happen to be. Everyone in the family stores stuff there, and I had no idea what some of the stuff is or was -- I was surprised that it was there. I assumed I must have put it there by accident, but when the story broke, Yale called and said he's pretty sure he uploaded a bunch of it. I had no idea, but that sounds right, because I sure don't remember putting some of that stuff there.
I consider the server a private storage device, not meant for public access. I'd have been more careful about its contents if I had known that others could access it.
UPDATE 2: Another website, the South Carolina Criminal Defense Blog, has this take
After actually seeing the photos that this is all about, I think it has been blown far out of proportion.
I think that this is correct.