Those couples [sic], by the way, include … A special congratulations to them.

Wow – this supposedly conservative site endorses a blogger who openly supports same-sex pseudo-marriage.

My point in this is that regardless of how offensive we may find something, it takes quite a bit for it to become pornographic. And you’ve got to trust me on this, from what Patterico showed, nothing Kosinsky had crosses that line (personally, the “cow-girls” didn’t bother me but the priest stuff does). If I were in Kosinky’s shoes, I’d go after the deepest pockets that made claims of providing pornography…it’s defamation of the highest order. Interesting discussion.

but you really can’t call what the judge put up pornography

It really comes down to how pornography is defined. The dictionary definition in most versions defines it as sexual content with the intended effect of causing sexual excitement.

The judge himself already admits to posting “sexual content” so the only thing left to decide is if it was meant to cause sexual excitement or not. I merely argue that if people are going to get up in arms about prosti-tot clothes being over the line (which I agree with) for promoting an image that sexualizes children then it is hard to argue that images like what was found on the judge’s computer was not sexual in nature and intended to arouse.

I guess if I were to win my case with you and Rusty I would need to take some of the pictures in question and take a poll of as many US citizens as possible and ask if they saw this would it get them rev’ed up. We all know how much stock liberals put in polls after all.

Maybe it’s just the difference between conservative libertarians and the rest of you showing up here…but you really can’t call what the judge put up pornography, and to keep insisting that he has posted pornography smacks of the typical lefty meme of “smear till it sticks.” Glad you get it Rusty…one more time to the rest of you…offensive, yes; bad judgment, yes; pornography…NO!

On June 17th, 2008 at 3:07 pm, Rusty said:
AK, what exactly on the site was meant for sexual excitement?

I’ll take the word of the owner over your lack of ability to recognize sexual content anyday Demon Puppet:

In an interview with the Times last week, Kozinski acknowledged posting sexual content on his Web site. He defended some of the adult content as “funny,” but conceded that other postings were inappropriate, the newspaper said.

Abstract, I’m not arguing that there aren’t things on there that people would find offensive. I take offense to the animalization of women. Others are going to be bothered by a costume that makes light of the Catholic pedophilia scandal. But a judge has the same right as any one else to have that stuff up on the Internet.

And I still insist the stain glass window is hilarious. Unintentional funny is often the best kind.

Nothing on the judge’s website qualifies as pornography since nothing on the site was intended to cause sexual excitement.

Only people with “your kind of mind” would ever say such an asinine statement. And my analogy is spot on, which is why this story is newsworthy to begin with.

On June 17th, 2008 at 12:41 pm, Rusty said:

Just for being fair…i notice your objection to the cows, and not the priests’ display, which would likewise be offensive to a great many people.

So its ok to make fun of the clergy, but not the rest?

That’s not liberal mentality. No sir.

It would be one thing if he owned pornography that was made or distributed by the defendant. But that wasn’t the case.

Your analogy saying that crack addicts shouldn’t preside over prosecutions of crack dealers is misguided. It’s more like saying a judge who drinks alcohol shouldn’t preside over a crack case. After all, they’re both drugs.

On June 17th, 2008 at 1:06 pm, alaskangrizzly

LOL! Great minds think a like!

On June 17th, 2008 at 12:41 pm, Rusty said:

Regardless, the judge hasn’t done anything wrong or illegal.

You mean besides hosting pornography on a public website, while presiding over court cases involving pornography and showing definite favoritism toward pornographers? It doesn’t bother you that this is a clear case of conflict of interest?

Regardless, the judge hasn’t done anything wrong or illegal.

Of course not, I mean a judge presiding over a case with a porn maker being charged while having his own porn on his website is like a crack addict being the judge over the case of a crack dealer.

Nothing wrong with that. /sarc