Will LA chief judge, with sexually explicit website, continue to preside over obscenity trial?

I forgot to remember to include a link: <http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-kozinski12-2008jun12,0,6220192.story>

i think we should have the link to the gov's website also. just for research purposes only of course :O)

Recuse himself and miss out on all that new material?!?!

Nice question i laughed so hard when I saw this story on yahoo today. Apparently he is a keen defender of freedom of speech and managed to convince the government to remove the content blockers on circuit judges computers, allowing access to pornography etc

well he wouldn't look half as stupid if he wasn't saying it isn't obscene material...

Does, "Removed as judge (not by his choice)", mean removed from this trial or completely removed as a judge?

@ AAA -- my intent was "removed from this trial" ... but if he was "completely removed as a judge" which included his not presiding over this trial, than that would work = )

I hope the category editors are paying attention.

If he chose to initiate a process, that resulted in his being removed as a judge ... that wouldn't be "Removed as judge (not by his choice)" ... do you think? ;-)

Larry Lessig's, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig), take on the Web, Kozinski, and the media, as posted at his Blog: http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html

QUOTE:
"I take it anyone would agree that it would outrageous for someone to publish the stuff this disgruntled sort produced. Obviously, within limits: if there were illegal material (child porn, for example), we'd likely ignore the trespass and focus on the crime. But if it is not illegal material, we'd all, I take it, say that the outrage is the trespass, and the idea that anyone would be burdened to defend whatever someone found in one's house.

Because this is in many ways the essence of privacy. Not the right to commit a crime (though sometimes it has that effect). But the right not to have to defend yourself about stuff you keep private. If the trespasser found a Playboy on the table in the den, the proper response is not to publish an article reporting this fact, and then shift the burden to the home owner to defend the presence of the Playboy (a legal publication, harmless in the eyes of some, scandalous in the eyes of others). The proper response is to give the private party the benefit of privacy: which is, here at least, the right not to have to explain. "

Great post, Jamal. Interesting idea, but practical in hypocritical America? This guy is 57.. he'll be given the choice to recuse thereby preserving his career, perhaps pension etc. It would be a nasty and unwarranted blow to shut him down I'd imagine. A friend's father of mine in Australia was a supreme court high judge in the Westminster system (top of the pile) and he used to roll some brilliant Fat Dogs. And after a hard day's judging, who wouldn't savour a big fat juicy joint?

Judge Alex Kozinski recuses himself from obscenity trial

"The 9th Circuit chief judge makes the decision three days after admitting he had posted sexually explicit photos and videos on his personal website.

"In light of the public controversy surrounding my involvement in this case, I have concluded that there is a manifest necessity to declare a mistrial," said Alex Kozinski, chief judge for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. "I will recuse myself from further participation in the case and will ask the chief judge of the district court to reassign it to another judge."