Kozinski and Porn

A co-worker just sent me this incredibly fascinating post regarding an "adult materials" site once maintained by Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Kozinski has always been known as a colorful, even bombastic judicial figure, penning opinions that rival those of Scalia both in their clarity and their appeal to a sort of layman's logic. While conservative in the libertarian sense, Kozinski tends to be far less of a "law and order" thinker than Scalia, and his place on the ideological spectrum is often seen as opposite that of the politically conservative Supreme Court justice (whether this is a technically accurate assessment or not).

In any case, the article describes some of the contents of the site, which was apparently maintained at a url bearing the judge's name (alex.kozinsky.com - now down), as follows: "a photo of a naked women on all fours painted to look like cows, . . . a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal," and "a graphic step-by-step pictorial in which a woman is seen shaving her pubic hair." Wow. He claims that he did not think that the site was publicly accessible, which is entirely conceivable, given the shock experienced by some when they realize that any images they post on, for example, facebook or myspace can be seen by millions. But the really interesting thing about all of this is the way he has reacted to these revelations. Rather than the what-you-would-expect denial or attempt to blame a hacker (those devious hackers, always putting porn on folks' computers!), he has sought to defend the maintenance of the images. To wit:

Some of the material was inappropriate, he conceded, although he defended other
sexually explicit content as “funny.” [. . .] Kozinski told the Los Angeles
Times that 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.”

While the contents of his site are admittedly embarrassing, I find his approach to the issue to be actually quite refreshing. Humans (especially males, sorry) are naturally interested in sex and sexual images, and American culture is notoriously far behind that of the Western European democracies in our openness and frankness about sex. While a certain degree of sexual modesty is healthy and beneficial, and while Judge Kozinski was certainly foolish to display these images on a site publicly associated with his name, we shouldn't feign shock at the revelation that a prominent or respected person enjoys sexual imagery.

We often find that those who are the quickest to condemn sexual expression are hiding their own sexual desires, and perhaps their outspokenness is a defense mechanism. I'm reminded of Newt Gingrich's recent admission that, while he led the G.O.P. in a "character counts" onslaught against the promiscuous Bill Clinton, he was himself engaged in an extramarital affair. Or Larry Craig, who allied himself with the anti-gay right-wing of the Republican party, yet frequently sought undercover gay sex. Or Ted Haggard, who resigned from his role as leader of a massive, puritanical church amidst a methamphetamine-and-homoerotic-massage scandal. We see again and again examples of those who condemn "deviant" sexual behaviors, though unable to resist the very same impulses.

The Kozinski revelations will almost certainly trigger all sorts of scandal-laden coverage and talking-head commentary from those who supposedly represent the morally conservative in America. But, given the biological roots of our sexual impulses and the fact that sexual desire is indeed, in Kozinski's words, "part of life," the vast majority of this outrage will be feigned and self-serving, functioning only to encourage us to repress our sexual nature. And, almost certainly, some will use this to political ends, using Kozinski's entertainment choices as some sort of metaphor for the tradition-skewing "activist" nature of the Ninth Circuit.

In any case, it's clear that Judge Kozinski should have been more discrete with these images and should not have had them posted on a site associated with his name. But we should approach the incident as something to laugh at, an ultra-candid glimpse at the humanity of a renowned public figure. We should take personal respite in the fact that even those who head our most stolid institutions are prone to the same ridiculous curiosities as the common man. And we should look with great suspicion at those who use this incident as an opportunity to moralize or to castigate those with "deviant" sexual desires.