Judge Removed for Viewing Porn

In September 2005, a judge was removed from office for having reviewed pornography on his office computer. The Kansas Supreme Court opinion did not actually address whether the behavior violated the judicial canons (the judge didn't appeal the findings that repeatedly viewing porn despite regulations to the contrary constituted a violation of the judicial canons). (If the link doesn't work -- http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/supct/2005/20051007/94647.htm is the url.) 

I don't know, but this seems like a weird one to me.  I don't see the nexus between judicial decision making and this conduct, except perhaps in cases involving indictments for violation of obscenity laws.  Is it that he violated "the law" and so can't be a judge any more?  If so, is a speeding ticket the same (please don't flame me, I'm not suggesting pornography has no harmful impact, but speeding does, too).  In fact, you can read this opinion as suggesting that watching porn is "worse" than actual in-person sexual harassment. ("He relies upon Kansas cases involving inappropriate sexual relations or advances as well as nonsexual misconduct cases which he contends involved more egregious misconduct; in these cases the judges were not removed from office.") Am I just missing it on this one?