CNN
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A federal judge has suspended the
obscenity trial of a Los Angeles **** distributor after a newspaper
re****t that the judge had ***ually explicit material on his own Web
site.
Ira Isaacs is accused of violating community obscenity standards in
the nation's reputed **** capital.
Judge Alex Kozinski granted a joint motion to suspend the trial
Wednesday after the prosecution said it needed time to look into the
issue of the judge's Web site.
The judge told the jury to return Monday.
The panel spent hours at the Pasadena offices of the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals watching videos depicting bestiality and extreme
fetishes.
Kozinski is chief justice of the 9th Circuit but is serving as a trial
judge in the obscenity case of Ira Isaacs.
Isaacs readily admits that he produced and sold movies depicting
bestiality and ***ual activity involving feces and urine.
"It's the most extreme material that's ever been put on trial. I don't
know of anything more disgusting," said Roger Jon Diamond -- Isaacs'
own defense attorney.
The case is the most visible effort of a new federal task force
designed to crack down on smut in America. Isaacs, however, says his
work is an extreme but constitutionally protected form of art.
"There's no question the stuff is disgusting," said Diamond, who has
spent much of his career representing ****ographers. "The question is,
should we throw people in jail for it?"
- - - - -
What ... judges have to turn in their testicles (or ovaries)
before they can get that black robe ? Empire of the eunichs ?
Snip, snip ... ???
What's next, 'Robo-Judges' ... fuzzy-logic computer programs
designed to analyze cases and dispense 'justice' to humans -
from their depths of their icy cold, inhuman hearts ? The
defense and prosecution just punch out the appropriate chads
on their IBM cards and stick 'em in the slot ... ?
Call me old fa****oned, but I've got this weird notion that
'justice' for humans should be dispensed BY humans ... even
if, perhaps especially if, said humans DO get ***** like
other humans and post pictures of nekked women with great
big hooters :-)
As for the CASE involved, the 1st amendment was NOT written
to protect "popular" art, ideas, religions or ideologies.
They don't NEED protecting. It was writ to protect UNpopular
stuff - world/culture/government-shaking paradigm-breaking
kinds of stuff ... the stuff that keeps nations and cultures
stirred-up and moving so they don't stagnate and sink into
the tar-pit of history.
So, as long as no humans were seriously harmed in these
films and the Shetland pony left with a smile on its face,
the courts have NO business trying to impose the religious
sensibilities of our blue-nosed puritan types on anyone
else. The 1st also mentions 'establishment of religion'
as a big no-no ... even if it's by a sneaky 'round-about
route using terms like "obscenity" or "heresy".
|
