WTF?

It really doesn't make sense.

Judges are people, they do tend to engage in sexual activity once in a while. They even have genitalia.



The judge is presiding over an obscenity case.
The judge had a site that had some porn on it that he didn't successfully prevent the public from viewing.

Those two situations have nothing to do with each other and are not a conflict of interest. (depending on the nature of the photos)

Obscenity does not automatically equal porn. Even weird or funny porn, even fetish porn is not necessarily legally obscene.

If the pictures he posted would fit the legal definition of obscene then a case could be made for a conflict of interest.

If he was part owner of a movie studio specializing in shock and sick movies, including horror movies with a lot of gore, that doesn't mean he would have a conflict of interest in a case involving snuff films.

If he owned a restaurant would he have a conflict of interest in a case involving a restaurant that served outdated food (provided his restaurant didn't compete with the one being charged)

the internet giveth and the internet taketh away

hmmm. I don't know if many people are reading the full article.
The description of the first vid - "a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal" sounds like the vaguely amusing clip of the donkey in the field chasing the tubby guy and trying to mount him. Hardly porn.
The other pic was of a two women painted as cows. I'm pretty sure I know which one that is, and it's tame to say the least. Your mileage may vary. Opinion as to whether it's demeaning may also.
A bit dumb for a judge I agree, but it doesn't sound to me like he's Gary Glitter.

Yes, that was my point. It may have involved nudity. It may even be considered "porn" since that is such a broad term, but it certainly isn't "obscene" so it shouldn't make him unfit to hear the case and it most definitely doesn't make him unfit to be a judge.

Besides... wouldn't you want a judge on an "obscenity" trial to have at least SOME experience with what porn is? I dunno...

I cant see how you would want a judge on a case that he has no experience in the field...

BAH... freakin cold meds ... I'm just rambling now...

actually there is a lot of merit in that. Better to have someone who enjoys porn and can recognize the legal difference than some tightwad who thinks that the baring of an ankle will send you to hell.