July 2, 2009

Kozinski...

... admonished.

16 comments:

Fred4Pres said...

Perv!

I say that with love. I am a big Kozinski fan.

Randy said...

IIRC, the only reason it was "public" was because someone figured out how to break into the private section of his website. IN the end, much ado about nothing.

chuck b. said...

I was going to say the judicial council can go fuck itself, but then Cnn said, "[Kosinski's] actions, the panel wrote, 'can reasonably be seen as having resulted in embarrassment to the institution of the federal judiciary.'" That seems like a fair, reasonable statement. But then Randy said, "the only reason it was 'public' was because someone figured out how to break into the private section of his website" and now I want the judicial council to go fuck itself again.

When I first started to use Blogger and Flickr many years ago, I thought of them as scrapbooks, but public ones anyone could look at. They were full of other people's shit that I found online. It was fun for awhile, but I made it all private later on. That "Publish" button really does mean something, I guess.

rhhardin said...

The federal judiciary is beyond embarassment, for one thing.

They're up there with politicians.

Carlo said...

question: were it homosexual[male] pornography, would he have[even] been admonished

Jason (the commenter) said...

One of my friends, who works at a law firm, is constantly complaining about having to take viruses off of computers because the male partners were looking at porn.

Odds are, a judicial council is going to have at least one member pleading for leniency because they look at porn on the job, too.

TRO said...

How much valuable time and money did this whole thing waste?

traditionalguy said...

Now is the time for everbody to E-mail the Judge some crazy sexually explicit jokes illustrated by Pogo.

Robin said...

They admonished him for his carelessness in failing to secure what he thought was his private server, but did not find that there was misconduct. Interestingly, they also specifically admonished the media for mischaracterizing the facts in order to make it appear that he was hosting a porn website. Somehow, both the LA Times and CNN haven't mentioned that part.

I especially appreciate CNN letting us know he's Jewish. That's a much more important element to the story than any silly media misconduct.

Lem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lem said...

Kozinski is burning.

former law student said...

the only reason it was "public" was because someone figured out how to break into the private section of his website.

"Someone" = a disgruntled litigant who to date has complained of the "bias" of four separate judges. He pursued a lawsuit for seven years based on a typographical error.

The judge's mea culpa does seem reasonable: once he found out that his personal server was accessible to the entire WWW, he should have protected his file of oddities. A judge has to be more circumspect than you or I.

I would give Obama $1000 out of gratitude and surprise, if he would nominate Kozinski to the Supreme Court.

Randy said...

I would give Obama $1000 out of gratitude and surprise, if he would nominate Kozinski to the Supreme Court.

If he did that, I'd give him the legal limit and twist a lot of arms to give to him as well. ;-)

mariner said...

I wonder what happened to the "disgruntled litigant" who hacked into Kozinski's web site.

Isn't that a Federal crime?

Taylor said...

In a just world, right-wingers would nominate Kozinskis to the Supreme Court, and liberals would nominate Amars.

former law student said...

what happened to the "disgruntled litigant" who hacked into Kozinski's web site.

The dl had an excuse on the order of Kozinski left the curtains open, so he thought he would peep though the windows.

In some understandable context, like a class or a seminar, Kozinski gave out a URL to a file on his private server. (Some information relevant to his talk.) The DL found out, and browsed up and down Kozinski's file structure, looking at everything that caught his eye.

Is poking around an unsecured "website" a federal crime?