A Lesson in Obscenity

A bit embarrassing, this:

One of the highest-ranking federal judges in the United States, who is currently presiding over an obscenity trial in Los Angeles, has maintained his own publicly accessible website featuring sexually explicit photos and videos.

Goes to show how obscene it is that the Justice Department wastes public resources on adult "obscenity" trials. As to whether his own choice of viewing materials was obscene:

[Judge] Kozinski said he didn't think any of the material he posted on his website would qualify as obscene. "Is it prurient? I don't know what to tell you," he said. "I think it's odd and interesting. It's part of life."

The well-regarded judge clearly did not intend the website to be accessible by the public.

Before the site was taken down, visitors to http://alex.kozinski.com were greeted with the message: "Ain't nothin' here. Y'all best be movin' on, compadre."

Which is exactly what the Justice Department should do: move on to serious crime and stop sucking up to the right wingers who want to censor adult entertainment.

UPDATE: The trial has been suspended until Monday.

< Resolved: That Congress Make Its Computers Safe From Hackers | 14 Republicans Who Haven't Endorsed or Backed McCain >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    To put it mildly...he is a bit of a pig... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:28:07 PM EST

    Put Career Where Mouth Is (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kaleidescope on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:38:14 PM EST
    Hey TL'ers, here's your great chance to show that you "won't be shut up" about sexism.  Naked women on all fours painted up as cows.  That's at least as bad as snickering about Hillary Clinton's cleavage.  Since you've all shown how determined you are to denounce sexism whenever and wherever you see it, here you go.  Especially those of you who practice in the Ninth Circuit.  You have a chance to "call out" Kozinski's sexism to his face when you appear in front of him.

    I'm far from the 9th Circuit (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:13:10 PM EST
    and this man is no doubt a hypocrite to his very core.  But this material is more than just sexist - it's also incredibly masochistic.  Masochism lives and breathes from sexism...but this man was no doubt titillated at the possibility of discovery.  This man should be removed from the court, and I wonder if it's not what he actually wants.

    Sexual fetishism draws from many misogynistic themes.  Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, she wasn't trying to be a sexual fetishist - she was just trying to figure out what to put on every morning.  This case and her treatment by the media are not IMO the same.  


    Really? (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:22:46 PM EST
    Masochism lives and breathes from sexism...


    Sexual fetishism draws from many misogynistic themes.

    Wow I did not know that these things were only practiced and enjoyed by creepy men who hate women. I will have to inform some friends of mine that they are not only dangerous freaks, but that they are supposed to be men and full of hate.


    Masochism (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:43:44 PM EST
    in a heterosexual, man cowering before woman sense, draws off stereotypes of women that don't do women many favors in terms of their agency.  Could it be the "cold" woman actually isn't cold?  No, because that wouldn't fit the fantasy.  Could it be "the woman" might want to do more with her life than punish men?  Um, yeah, but it's not so typical of our culture to expect women to lead lives that DON'T revolve around men.  Etc.  IMO, masochism operates in a very symoblic realm, and a lot of our cultural symbols of masculinity and feminity are sexist.

    As far as sexual fetishism goes, is not the stilleto heel a sexual fetish?  Is that heel comfortable for women, or men who choose to wear it?  It limits the range of movement, it makes running extremely difficult.  Yet it has a blockbuster role in many films and carries a lot of sexual energy.  It signifies temporary weakness.  Heels exist in modern society to limit movement.  Especially women's movement.  Isn't that, at its core, a misogynistic theme?

    Masochism involves beating up on and glorying in weakness.  Weakness is often associated with femininity.  Ergo, masochism is built upon sexist views of gender.  When a man wears a female costume (panties, leather) to signify his humiliation, his being controlled by another, does that do any favors for the woman outside of the fantasy who wakes up the next day and puts on a skirt to go to work?  Does it do any favors for our views culturally of those clothes?  

    I didn't say any of these things were only for creepy men.  I called nobody "a dangerous freak."  Give me some more credit.  Don't distort what I said.


    Well You Are Laying A Trip (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:02:55 PM EST
    On many who have healthy sexual relations, be they glbt or straight. And of that group the large majority keep it in the privacy of their bedrooms. In the world they are as normal as anyone. And having a satisfying and healthy sex life usually leads to a productive professional life. Calling for firing a Judge because you do not approve of what he does in legally and in private seems unwise to me.

    Power relationships between people cross all genders and it comes as no surprise that these power dynamics are acted out in many bedrooms. There are sicko's out there who are puritanical and and sickos who are satanical. Repression, imo is unhealthy, imo, and leads to a lot more twist cases who are harmful to society, than those people who enjoy their perversions and fetishes fully.



    Laying a trip? (none / 0) (#24)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:30:31 PM EST
    What trip?  This judge lamely (IMO) claims his internet activity was private.  I think that is untrue.  Unless it turns out to be true, somehow, that his son put all this crap on the internet (srsly????), I will be wondering why a conservative judge who takes obscenity cases finds it appropriate to indulge in his own "obscenities" while judging others re: their own.  The thought of such a judge secretly laughing during a case, that sort of dissonance, irks me and makes me want to see him bear the burden of his OWN scandal.  That's my opinion as someone who doesn't think legally, but in terms of the ups and downs of reputation, of media and "guilty despite innocent."

    I don't mind the imagery.  I just mind the hypocrisy, the power he has, and the ability to exercise it over others who are the same as he.  As I mentioned in another post, this reminds me of the Judge caught driving under the influence while crossdressing.  Is it a coincidence that judges end up in these situations?  Or does it reflect something intrinsic to having that much authority over others?  Masochism is a drama about weakness.  Judges have a lot of power.
    This judge is ruling on how people enjoy themselves, while secretly enjoying himself by his own rules.  Does he respect the law?  Does he respect others enough to enforce the law?  The LA Times article makes it seem as though he is familiar enough with the images to be able to understand how they might conflict with this current case (and future cases).  I just do not believe it is true that he did not know of these images.  I don't think they were all "funny."
    We're all in the same boat.  We've all got sexual quirks and sexual preferences.  But if a Judge is going to go after someone for what he is doing, I think that's wrong.  It's a violation of what should be our fundamental sympathy to working out sexual issues.


    Interesting but (none / 0) (#33)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:18:00 PM EST
    A judge makes rulings on law.  He does not "judge" in laymans terms for the most part.  The "judging" (fact finding) is done by the jury.  

    Judge does not really "go after anyone" at all.  Judge is neutral.  The prosecutor "goes after" people.  

    I think you misunderstand the role of the judge.

    Under the circumstances of the case, I don't see  an actual conflict of interest.  I do see the "appearance of impropriety."  I suspect he will recuse himself.


    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by lilburro on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:08:19 AM EST
    my statement that he should be removed from court was way over the top.  I respect his privacy and right to have these images.  I guess my brain just fried from the seeming hypocrisy...

    I'll be interested to see what happens with this case.  Apologies to all for overreacting.


    Additionally, (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by lilburro on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:19:45 AM EST
    there isn't any evident hypocrisy on his part (certainly not yet).  Again, sorry I got this all wrong :o !

    Yes (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:26:13 AM EST
    It is understandable. This is a touchy subject bound to push all sorts of hot buttons (puns intended).

    Judge Kozinsky is not running for president, (none / 0) (#15)
    by FemB4dem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:31:21 PM EST
    Obama is.  I have never seen Judge Kozinsky treat any woman attorney appearing before him with the sexist disdain that came out of Obama's own mouth -- "just a minute sweetie," when putting down, and then ignoring, a female reporter.  And yes, I do practice in the Ninth Circuit.

    Most feminists, and I'm betting most of the ones on this site, think Catherine McKinnon is wrong about pornography.  I know I do.  Personally, I don't care at all what Judge Kozinsky has on his website.  I care deeply about the misogyny our mainstream media engaged in during the process of choosing our next president.  If your comment was not snark, and you really do not see the difference, then you are blind.  


    Neither is Chris Mathews (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kaleidescope on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:13:57 PM EST
    So you think it only appropriate to call out sexism in people who are running for president?  Talk about situational ethics.

    You mustn't really care that much about sexism.


    Right. Go ahead and ignore the point (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by FemB4dem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:29:48 PM EST
    of my comment, kaleidescope.  Men and women on this site have been calling out the media, and Obama himself, because of the misogyny that has surfaced in the important context of the presidential race, and you jump in and say, nyah, nyah, you don't really mean it if you don't jump up and down and call out a federal judge who has some dirty photos on a website.  That is a juvenile argument, IMO.

    Dr. Molly raises a much more interesting point, and one I have gone back and forth on.  I had reached the decision, after much study and thought, that pornography as a rule is not harmful, and you're right, I do have libertarian leanings on this issue of leaving consenting adults alone.  But, you tied this in well to the issue of society's willingness to demean women.  In a different way, that is just what we watched the press -- and the Obama campaign -- do to Hillary.  Thank you Dr. Molly, you have opened my eyes and made me realize I need to give what was an old, closed issue for me, some new thought in light of present circumstances.


    Thanks FemB4dem (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:36:16 PM EST
    I always like your thoughtful comments.

    This is a really tough issue because it's the old balancing act between different rights. You would have more insight than me about legal aspects.

    I just know that this stuff is morally wrong for women and children. I worked for a long time helping prostitutes get off the street and into safe places and trained for real work. It was an eye-opener for me because lefties don't really care about these women, and the 'new feminism' thinks it's all about career choices. The right-wing is anti-porn and anti-prostitution (hypocritically, yes I know) for all the wrong reasons but at least some of them actually help women get off the streets and get their self-respect back. I actually worked beside christian conservatives in this regard. Strange but true.

    Nothing is simple in this world.


    Whatever (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:22:28 PM EST
    this judge's proclivities are, I don't see any evidence that he is sexist as a jurist.  I do not know him at all but I simply won't take the logical leap here.  I am amazed that you see this as somehow related to Hillary supporters.  

    So if I find adult porn inoffensive, (none / 0) (#25)
    by eleanora on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:34:19 PM EST
    then Chris Matthews didn't use sexist speech and stereotypes against Hillary Clinton? I'm not seeing your logic there.

    It's Not the Porn (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by kaleidescope on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:46:46 PM EST
    It is photos of naked women on all fours painted up as cows.  That is sexist and misogynistic, even it it is also a "dirty" picture.

    Just because something is pornographic doesn't mean that it ISN'T sexist and misogynistic.

    People here, especially attorneys, have a real opportunity.  They can write letters to the editor of their local Ninth Circuit legal newspapers.  They can write op-ed pieces in their local newspapers.  They can contact the House Judiciary Committee.  They can "call out" Kozinsky to his face.

    Do you mean to say that nobody here is going to "call out" Kozinsky on this?


    My comment concerned (none / 0) (#30)
    by eleanora on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:10:43 PM EST
    your conflation of this issue with Chris Matthews using sexism against Hillary Clinton, though.

    Telling feminists exactly when and where and how they must practice their feminism in order to meet someone else's standards is often used as a silencing mechanism. "Say things I agree with, and I'll let you speak your mind about other things!"

    Sounds like you feel strongly about this issue and should pursue some action related to it. If you post a petition or start a letter writing campaign, I'd be glad to read it and support you if I agree.


    Do You Practice in the Ninth Circuit? n/t (none / 0) (#31)
    by kaleidescope on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:46:16 PM EST
    Who's Defending Chris Mathews? (none / 0) (#32)
    by kaleidescope on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:02:03 PM EST
    He is a sick puppy and his sexist comments about Hillary Clinton and his comments to his co-workers were and should be called out as sexist.  A lot of people came down hard on Mathews. He was, after all, forced to apologize on-air for some of his sexist comments.

    My point about Mathews was that, like judge Kozinsky, Mathews isn't running for president.  One doesn't have to limit calling out sexism to remarks made by one candidate who is running against another candidate that the critic just happens to be supporting for president.

    As far as "telling" feminists whom to criticize, I wasn't telling anyone to do anything.  I was merely pointing out an opportunity for those who "refused to be shut up about" sexism to criticize it, since criticizing sexism is extremely important to people around here.  It would be demeaning to the people here to think that they are only interested in criticizing sexism when it is directed at certain powerful, wealthy and well-connected candidates they support.

    I'd think that people would thank me for providing them an opportunity to speak out as, say, Big Tent Democrat says he is determined to do.

    Instead people criticize me for trying to "steal their voice" by pointing out that there is a powerful judge who hoards pictures that depict women as cattle.

    I guess no good deed goes unpunished.


    "It would be demeaning (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by FemB4dem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:57:39 PM EST
    to the people here to think that they are only interested in criticizing sexism when it is directed at certain powerful, wealthy and well-connected candidates they support."

    You really don't get this, do you?  Whatever Judge Kozinsky did, was in what he meant to be his private life.  On the contrary, the misogynistic tsunami we have just gone through was very publicly aimed at Hillary and felt by all women (and men) who were paying the least bit of attention.  


    On Second Thought (none / 0) (#39)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:14:47 AM EST
    And after thinking about it, you're right.  This was something that Kozinski very definitely wanted to keep private, keep to himself.

    I disagree with most of his jurisprudence, but everything I've read about him indicates that he is respected and well liked by his fellow judges.

    So you're right.  If Kozinski wants to think of women as cattle in his private life and doesn't impose that on other people, then that's totally his own business and he shouldn't be called out.  And it is very different from the very public expressions of sexism we got from Mathews, Olberman, Mike Barnicle, Tucker Carlson, et al.

    But if I had a daughter I still wouldn't want her to marry Kozinski.


    Agree 100% on both points. (none / 0) (#45)
    by FemB4dem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 04:13:16 PM EST
    Thanks for listening and thinking.  We need more of that in this world!

    *You* brought up Matthews (none / 0) (#38)
    by eleanora on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:59:00 AM EST
    and Hillary in this context, no one else did. And your language sounded like hectoring, not "pointing out":

    "Since you've all shown how determined you are to denounce sexism whenever and wherever you see it, here you go."

    "You mustn't really care that much about sexism."

    "Do you mean to say that nobody here is going to "call out" Kozinsky on this?"

    "I was merely pointing out an opportunity for those who "refused to be shut up about" sexism to criticize it, since criticizing sexism is extremely important to people around here."

    Judge Kozinsky's porn scandal has nothing to do with the presidential election, so bringing it up the way you did sounded like a passive-aggressive put-down to me, plus the accusation that "people around here" don't fight sexism in any other context. And I didn't see that you offered an "opportunity" to help you fight something you perceive as sexist, just a demand that others go fight it in a specific way. Maybe my nerves are just raw from the last few weeks, time out for me.


    Disagree (none / 0) (#17)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:44:32 PM EST
    This is one of those very few areas where I am not so well-aligned with liberals, so I am used to feeling isolated on this and will surely be flamed.

    There is plenty of data and research that show the harmful effects of porn and especially hardcore porn and child porn on real live women and children. Not to mention the effects on the participants.

    I find that liberals are often very libertarian rather than progressive on these issues, and also the same with prostitution (just a career choice, dontcha know, not exploitation at all - unless of course they are talking about their own daughters, sisters, mothers, etc., then it's horrifyingly exploitative).

    Oh well, I know what I know, and I don't care what liberals spin anymore. I've never understood the place of demeaning women in a progressive society, but plenty of so-called progressives think it's just fine.


    The internet (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:12:09 PM EST
    has caused massive proliferation of pornography.  I agree that pornography is in the main harmful.  However, I think of it in terms of a larger activist agenda, not in a legal sense.  I would not want pornography made illegal, for instance.  I do want people to realize how its availability and imagery affects our ability to relate to each other.  Ay yi yi.  Don't know what to think, really!

    Of course.... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:42:44 PM EST
    there is harm in too much porn, as there is harm in too much television.  But in moderation I see no harm in either.

    I see a lot more harm in puritanical sexual repression.


    Typical (none / 0) (#46)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:13:52 PM EST
    Thanks for proving my point.

    The harm is not about harm to YOU. It's about harm to those exploited and to all women when those stereotypes pervade society.


    Equally typical.... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:00:07 PM EST
    I don't mean harm to me...I mean pornography or sexual kink, done in moderation, where all participants consent, is of no harm to society.  It is more harmful to try to repress or prohibit such activity.

    No doubt most of the garbage out there is just that...garbage.  But then we are getting into a question of taste, and I always say err on the side of freedom.


    No (none / 0) (#43)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:50:16 AM EST
    Hold up. Couple of questions:

    1. What data?

    2. What impact on women and children?

     And please do not conflate adult pornography with child pornography, or rape, for that matter.  That there is a losing proposition.  Every time I hear those things in the same sentence I immediately suspect whoever made the comment.  They are not the same, period.  

     As for prostitution, well, again, with my libertarian tendencies (and I have pretty strong ones in this area), that is a nonstarter.  Hell, if it is so bad, though, why not just toss prostitutes in prison for years, like we do with drug users and dealers?



    Yes. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:14:44 PM EST
    And thanks for proving my point too. Liberal men become libertarian when it comes to issues that harm women. They just don't care.

    You would be wrong (none / 0) (#50)
    by Emma on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:52:19 PM EST
    Most feminists, and I'm betting most of the ones on this site, think Catherine McKinnon is wrong about pornography.

    about most feminists.  Though I can't say about most on this site, you may be right about that.  But I certainly don't think Catharine MacKinnon is wrong about pornography.  Especially given that most descriptions of what MacKinnon thinks about pornography are seriously incorrect.


    Until the architechts... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:07:31 PM EST
    of the Iraq War and Occupation get charged with them, obscenity laws, like much of the criminal code, will remain nothing but a big fat joke to me.

    People who like to get a little freaky-deaky ain't the problem...seriously.  Obscenity?

    Good One (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:15:28 PM EST
    New to me, cause I got no teevee.

    How embarrassing (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:00:17 AM EST
    This sounds like private information that inadvertently became public.  Judge Kozinski is a first-rate jurist and it's a shame he'll likely be remembered for this episode moreso than for his contributions to the law.

    ... and switching between radio channels, I heard a commercial for a country western station which proclaimed it's family friendly! Immediately after was one song carrying on about naked (nekkid) bodies, another about drunk people picking each other up at the bar, and then one about hunting down drug dealers, kidnapping them and tying them up in the swamp so snakes and skeeters can eat them.

    Then another commercial proclaiming family friendly!

    :D I was amused.

    He was doing research. (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:41:50 PM EST

    Jeez, come on people. (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:57:03 PM EST
    "He was doing research" was funny.

    Only (none / 0) (#49)
    by Patrick on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:18:05 AM EST
    if they were aware of Bernie..But, yeah I thought it was pretty funny.  

    Hey... I'm with you (none / 0) (#5)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:42:02 PM EST
    I don't think most people would agree with my philosophy, though. I think that consenting, non-mentally deficient adults should be able to do whatever they want, as long as they don't hurt anybody who doesn't (or can't) consent. I'm actually radical enough to not even be bothered by child pornography as long as it does not in any way exploit a living child. I think it's obscene that we allow absolutely horrible things to be faked for movies, but charge people with crimes if they distribute sexual material. Make love, not war... people. Even if your idea of "making love" involves leather and chains.  Have you seen Saw? I haven't, but I read the movie spoiler, and in my ideal world nobody would even be allowed to fake that kind of stuff. But it isn't my world, and nobody actually gets hurt by it, so it's none of my business.

    I should have said "real"... (none / 0) (#6)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:44:44 PM EST
    ...not "living". exploiting children who are no longer present, or even no longer children, isn't any better than hurting ones who are. I am specificlaly referring to tolerating art work that does not use real children. I think the idea of such work spurring people onto real crimes is silly. It's not like there are people out there copying horror films. (Thanks the powers).

    I'd love to know (none / 0) (#7)
    by stillife on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:46:09 PM EST
    who's on his e-mail list.

    He keeps the things he finds interesting or funny with the thought that he might later pass them on to friends, he said.

    It never stops fascinating me (none / 0) (#8)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:06:48 PM EST
    the risks high ranking judges take with sexual experimentation.  Reminds me of Judge Somma and his Feb arrest.  

    A vicar in a tutu, he's not strange, he just wants to live his life this way...

    Update on WSJ (none / 0) (#9)
    by Rashomon66 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:10:33 PM EST
    This is on a WSJ blog today.

    With regard to the article in today's Los Angeles Times, the computer server is maintained by one of the judge's sons. It is not government property. All family members use it.... After the story broke, one of the judge's sons contacted him to say he had uploaded much of the items referenced in the story.... It was not meant to be accessible by others and the judge had no idea it was. Had he known, he would have been more careful of its contents.

    If this is to be believed then the lesson should be that he needs to learn the difference between private and public web sites.

    What My Porn Really Meant n/t (none / 0) (#11)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:15:45 PM EST
    I am told the webarchive has nothing on it (none / 0) (#12)
    by jerry on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:21:36 PM EST
    I wouldn't be looking it up on the Internet Wayback Machine, such behavior is beneath me.  But a friend of mine says there isn't anything there....

    I am not sure what to think (none / 0) (#14)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:28:13 PM EST
    And what does this have to do with Hillary Clinton?  Not much IMHO.  I don't really know what happened with this judge, other than controversial items ended up in a database to which his name is attached.  I have no idea if this is some kind of storage database, external to his computer or what.  The son seems to acknowledge downloading many of the items.

    I am really not ready to condemn anyone here. I recall doing a computer search in a law library on "sex offenders."  Suddenly, the computer screen was filled with very graphic porn and the web pages kept popping up uncontrollably.  No matter what I did, they kept popping up!  I called over the librarian and we had to shut down the computer at the main terminal.  

    I am sure if someone tracked the history, it would have appeared that I was clicking into porn after porn.  I never knew if anything was downloaded as I did not stick around too much longer.  

    I never knew which link did this. It was a simple sex offender registry search.  


    there is no such thing as (none / 0) (#35)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:30:32 PM EST
    "private" on the internet. if you put it out there, it becomes fair game. the gov't shouldn't be in the morals business, that's religion and philosophy's job. as long as the events are between consenting adults, it's no one's concern but the participants.

    on the other hand, it's easy pickings for any ambitious prosecutor, just ask KS.