Too tough on judge

Re “Free speech, public trust,” editorial, July 5

The Times’ editorial board, having first carefully hidden its copies of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue under a stack of innocuous papers, climbs on its high horse of prudery to declare that any judge who dares enjoy a bit of risque material is unable to consider an obscenity case.

By that logic, anybody who has any involvement whatsoever with a given issue, or even knowledge of it, should be barred from deciding anything remotely related to it. Applying the same standard, I can’t wait until the next time a religious establishment case comes before the Supreme Court. Will The Times then call on the devoutly Catholic Justice Antonin Scalia to disqualify himself from any such case?

Geoff Kuenning

Claremont

I agree that one in a position of public trust like Judge Alex Kozinski, who would have presided over a case concerning sexual obscenity, should not have openly posted demeaning pornographic images of women, even though the images are constitutionally allowable. But I disagree that “it’s alarming that he would have taken on such a case” given his own sexual interests, as the editorial states.

The editorial should have given more credit to Kozinski’s ability to take on the case, irrespective of his sexual tastes, and remain an impartial adjudicator of the law, as he has been trained to be.

Kurt Fraser

San Diego

I don’t get it. Kozinski, who The Times claims has used his “constitutional right to indulge his taste in prurient and demeaning material,” recused himself from an obscenity case and was “praised” for it. The question is, if there were truly freedom of speech in America, would there even be an obscenity case? What about an individual’s right to determine what constitutes obscenity and what doesn’t?

If praise is due anyone, it should be for the judge who drops the case -- but I’m not counting on that happening any time soon.

Maryann Grau

South Pasadena