Kozinski apparently posted many of the pictures because of their humorous qualities. My favorite excerpt from the article:
"Among the sexually explicit material on his site that he defended as humorous were two photos. In one, a young man is bent over in a chair and performing fellatio on himself. In the other, two women are sitting in what appears to be a cafe with their skirts hiked up to reveal their pubic hair and genitalia. Behind them is a sign reading 'Bush for President.'Indeed. The use of double entendre is simply masterful, reminiscent of AC/DC's cheeky hit "Big Balls." I also like that they are sitting in "what appears to be a cafe," which begs the question: in what type of food-serving establishment were they actually sitting? Hopefully Kozinski will provide an answer to that question soon. My money's on a bistro.
'That is a funny joke,' Kozinski said."
And who hasn't laughed their ass off when watching a dude suck his own dick? Frankly, I'm more jealous than anything else.
Kozinski, ever the master of his domain, has now invited the court's ethics panel to investigate whether the posting of porn on his website violates any sort of ethical rules. Personally, I don't think he did anything ethically wrong, at least from a judicial or professional responsibility standpoint. Sure, it was stupid, but give the man a break because it was also so obviously hilarious -- hilarious enough to cause him to declare a mistrial.
3 comments:
Speaking of online porn. Have you seen Sean Stephenson's internet informercials?
Or his appearance on Jimmy Kimmel?
I suggest you look at both on youtube and comment. I would be interested in your thoughts.
I'm not sorry, but that guy was an amzing prick. He would talk shit to anyone in the room knowing full well that he was untouchable...I mean who wants to be seen arguing with a cabbage patch kid? Our only hope was that a stiff breeze would come through and break two or three bones.
His bones did "break real easy"
Post a Comment