Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kozinski Exonerated Again of Defending Right to Porn Web Sites

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • grog18b
    replied
    Sometimes, a dude just needs to look at smoking hot women.
    Shouldn't be a crime, as long as it doesn't interfere with duties or take up too much time. If a guy (or gal) want's to look at it during their lunch hour, and they are out of the public arena... Oh well.

    It's like smoking. I don't smoke. Never have, never will. The other guys get "smoke breaks" throughout the day, such as when we are training or working in the station. I gotta sit there and work. Those breaks make them feel better.

    Looking at awesome smoking hot women makes me feel better. Perhaps we should have smoking hot women looking at breaks? Perhaps more guys would quit smoking?

    Yes, that's humor.

    Leave a comment:


  • SCV-Sop
    replied
    Originally posted by KapsFB View Post
    Am I to understand you're defending this guy's 'right' to watch porn on a State computer???
    At first I saw it as a morality issue. It's not cool. However, I also see it as an over reach to blow something out of proportion (of course I only know what I read as spoon fed by the media).

    From personal experience I have had this happen to me:
    Each time I get a new job and the computer was used by someone else I scan it for media files. One time I found pictures for naked women on the computer.

    Now, some of the pictures were of normal looking women that I wouldn't consider subscription fee worthy if it came off an adult website.

    Fast forward a few years. The person who had the computer before me became my boss. There was a family picture with his wife and kid. Hmm, his wife was one of the pictures I deleted from the computer.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I kept my mouth shut, but it was an awesome feeling to know that’s why the pictures were fairly normal looking. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

    That's the risk you run folks. Keep it at home. Same goes for the judge. He won’t lose his job over it, but it sure is embarrassing.

    Leave a comment:


  • montanahogrider
    replied
    This reminds me of the judge with the Ummm "vacuum enlargement tool' that he was using during court hearings.

    Leave a comment:


  • DAL
    replied
    What difference does it make that he used his work computer? Did that impose additional costs on the government? Kozinsky probably works 60 hours a week, and works at home, too.

    Kozinsky doesn't have a boss, and he does not get overtime.

    Leave a comment:


  • adeutch
    replied
    Originally posted by SleepyCop View Post
    I don't see a problem with restricting what an official can see on an official computer. My computer isn't restricted, but if I start googling midget porn, you better believe my boss is going to ask me if I've got some sort of midget porn investigation going on...

    -SC
    Exactly. So to CYA, make sure you always have an ongoing internet porn investigation.

    Leave a comment:


  • SleepyCop
    replied
    I don't see a problem with restricting what an official can see on an official computer. My computer isn't restricted, but if I start googling midget porn, you better believe my boss is going to ask me if I've got some sort of midget porn investigation going on...

    -SC

    Leave a comment:


  • adeutch
    replied
    Again.. he's an appeals court judge. There COULD be legitimate reasons for him to need to be able to look at porn at work. I think the real problem is that it sounds like he did it secretly. Which probably means he's just some kinda whacko.

    Leave a comment:


  • KapsFB
    replied
    Originally posted by SCV-Sop View Post
    OK, actually there is one aspect about this I like. There is a LOT of prying into the personal lives of public officials (and I feel the sting myself as I fill out background paperwork and am essentially forced to answer all questions about me no matter how unimportant or private and non criminal they are).

    I like how this judge handled it, and likely by his profession knew how to keep his job. It’s not his actions that are the crime, but it would be a crime to prevent a legal process from inquiring about his actions no matter how embarrassing they might be perceived.

    The more they keep digging on this guy the more he lets them, and the more we find out how much he really is just like a lot of other people out there. Gee, imagine that, a public official just with human imperfections just like everyone else (since the dawn of time).
    Am I to understand you're defending this guy's 'right' to watch porn on a State computer??? I might (key word 'might') agree that it's been a long time since 2001 and perhaps the matter should be dropped due to the lag. I suspect however, any delays were caused in large part by the judge drawing the whole thing out and along.

    No, no, no, no, no........the computer's at work do not belong to the employee. For anyone else in violation, it's a termination offense. As it should be. What else is this clown doing while at work? Remind me not to shake his hand.

    Leave a comment:


  • adeutch
    replied
    The Supreme Court of the United States watched pornographic films in the basement of the Sup. Ct. building during hearings on obscenity cases.
    I'm not sure what all the fuss is about here. Is it the fact that pornography was involved or the fact that he broke into the court's computer system. Only the latter should really be cause for concern.

    Leave a comment:


  • SCV-Sop
    replied
    OK, actually there is one aspect about this I like. There is a LOT of prying into the personal lives of public officials (and I feel the sting myself as I fill out background paperwork and am essentially forced to answer all questions about me no matter how unimportant or private and non criminal they are).

    I like how this judge handled it, and likely by his profession knew how to keep his job. It’s not his actions that are the crime, but it would be a crime to prevent a legal process from inquiring about his actions no matter how embarrassing they might be perceived.

    The more they keep digging on this guy the more he lets them, and the more we find out how much he really is just like a lot of other people out there. Gee, imagine that, a public official just with human imperfections just like everyone else (since the dawn of time).

    Leave a comment:


  • Kozinski Exonerated Again of Defending Right to Porn Web Sites

    Can't people just WAIT till they get home on thier own computer? I don't understand it.

    **********

    Kozinski Exonerated Again of Defending Right to Porn Web Sites
    2009-10-27 15:22:39.564 GMT


    By Cynthia Cotts
    Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) -- A misconduct complaint against Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, was dismissed by a five-judge national judicial ethics committee.
    The ruling, made public yesterday, addressed allegations that Kozinski broke into a judicial computer security system in
    2001 to restore access to pornographic Web sites. The complaint was filed by Ralph Mecham, who headed the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for 21 years until retiring in 2006.
    The decision was signed by federal judge John Walker, chairman of the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the U.S. Judicial Conference, which oversees federal court procedures.
    Upholding a previous ruling, Walker found that the matter had been “addressed and resolved” by the Judicial Conference in 2001 and that Mecham waited too long to complain, making it impractical to conduct an “accurate and fair investigation.”
    In May, an ethics committee headed by Anthony Scirica, chief judge of the federal appeals court in Philadelphia, dismissed Mecham’s complaint based on the same reasoning.
    The complaint is J.C. 03-08-90106.

    For Related News and Information:
    Stories on Kozinski: BIO ALEX KOZINSKI Stories on legal ethics: NI ETHICS BN Top legal stories: TLAW Bloomberg legal resources: BLAW

    --Editors: Glenn Holdcraft, Steve Farr.

    To contact the reporter on this story:
    Cynthia Cotts in New York at +1-212-617-5986 or [email protected].

    To contact the editor responsible for this story:
    David E. Rovella at +1-212-617-1092 or [email protected].

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 3428 users online. 219 members and 3209 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X