I don't always agree with Judge Alex Kozinski, though I'm quite frequently entertained by him
(and, on balance, I probably do agree with him pretty often). Eric Goldman
points us to a recent concurring opinion
(pdf) by Judge Kozinski in a case involving a guy who was kicked out of a city council meeting for giving a Nazi salute, and then claimed his free speech rights were impeded upon. The case itself is not very interesting. But what is interesting is that, in his concurring opinion, Kozinski points out that even though the guy in question, Robert Norse, was unable to present evidence due to "procedural irregularities," since a video of the events in question were on YouTube, you could just watch it there, and then linked to the video in question:
I join Judge Thomas's opinion because it's clearly right. I
write only to observe that, even after the procedural irregularities
that deprived Norse an opportunity to present evidence,
it's clear that the council members aren't entitled to qualified
immunity. In the Age of YouTube, there's no need to take my
word for it: There is a video of the incident that I'm "happy
to allow . . . to speak for itself." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372,
378 n.5 (2007); see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOssHWB6WBI (last visited Nov. 16, 2010).
He then goes on to discuss the case. However, this may be the first time that I can recall a judge noting that even without official evidence being entered, you could just go watch the events in question on YouTube. We've had a few (sometimes heated) discussions around here concerning the rules of evidence and whether or not juries
should be allowed to seek out additional evidence like this -- and I'm glad to see Kozinski not just do so, but then point out to everyone in his concurrence how braindead obvious it is that those judging the case should see the video.