Slashdot Mirror
Google Trends vs. Community Standards On Obscenity
circletimessquare writes "Google Trends is being used in a novel way in a pornography trial in Florida. Under a 1973 Supreme Court ruling, 'contemporary community standards' may be used as a yardstick for judging material as unprotected obscenity. This is a very subjective judgment, and so Lawrence Walters, a defense lawyer for Clinton Raymond McCowen, is using Google Trends to show that, in the privacy of their own homes, more people in Pensacola (the only city in the court's jurisdiction that is large enough to be singled out in the service's data) are interested in 'orgy' than "apple pie'."
That is awesome.
There is a war going on for your mind.
As American Pie demonstrated, it just doesn't work as well as they claim.
Yeah, but did he try "warm apple pie". I bet he'd get very different results! :-D
My blog
mmmmm.....pie.
Other startling revelations from small town Southern life to anyone without half a brain:
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I know I am. And apple pie sure is tasty!
On the other hand, you already know where to get apple pie, but you have to use the internet to get porn, or post in the swingers classifieds. The comparison is skewed.
More music, fewer hits
Can anyone put up a picture of the U.S. (and world) that highlights areas that find apple pies more interesting that orgies?
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Looks like its time to plan a trip to Pensacola!
You'd think they'd've been struck down a long time ago. But I guess that'd give the Supreme Court too much common sense credit....
O.k., I can understand "Apple Pie" spiking every fall, presumably people looking up recipes. But wtf is up with the enormous spike in searches for "orgy" in Sept. 2006? It's as if everyone in Pensacola had a mass orgy meme sweep through the community. Must have been a mess month.
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
Group sex and orgies apparently. (From the courtcase)
"We tried to come up with comparison search terms that would embody typical American values," Mr. Walters said. "What is more American than apple pie?" But according to the search service, he said, "people are at least as interested in group sex and orgies as they are in apple pie."
Chris Hansen, a staff lawyer for the national office of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the tactic clever and novel, but said it underscored the power of the Internet to reveal personal preferences -- something that raises concerns about the collection of personal information.
"That's why a lot of people are nervous about Google or Yahoo having all this data," he said.
Subscribe to Google Blackmail now: Because We Know You Know We Know.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
I wonder if the great orgy spike of 2006 had anything to do with
the subsequent surfing decline and what was the net overall effect on Apple Pie-ism?
For even more fun with statistics, I recommend
How to Lie with Statistics.
Even the chapter titles are funny:
The Sample with the Built-in Bias
The Well-Chosen Average
The Little Figures That Are Not There
Much Ado about Practically Nothing
The Gee-Whiz Graph
The One-Dimensional Picture
The Semi-attached Figure
Post Hoc Rides Again
How to Statisticulate
How to Talk Back to a Statistic
music lover since 1969
for porn.
Mr. Walters might like to know that Walters is more popular than apple pie but less popular than orgy.
How exactly is google trends going to clear him of racketeering and prostitution? Just curious.
War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, the lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade.- Shelley
Maybe people there are just trying to get the band back together and tour?
I'm really tired of the "influential-prissy" inflicting their moral code on us by defining regular adult erotica outside the mainstream. I'm sorry, we the people LIKE erotica. It's in our nature and it's natural. If the prissy side doesn't want to partake, then they are free to refrain, but they shouldn't be able to tell the rest of us what we can and cannot do based on their narrow prejudices. Furthermore, I'm tired of these vague and nebulous laws which specify "community standards," as if we all got a say in the matter (which, evidently, we don't).
This is suppose to be the land of the FREE, not necessarily just the PRUDES.
Grump!
The pattern for "Apple Pie" is clearly seasonal, but where did the peak for "Orgy" around October 2006 come from?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
all of them...
it's not like there once was a time in human history when love was free and sex was easy. there have always been social limits on sex for as long as we have been social apes. sure, we don't have to fight and scrounge for food anymore, but this has only been true for the last century. which, not coincidentally, the last century has seen a relaxation of sexual mores. the other hundreds of thousands of years of human history has been a desperate fight for resources for you and your children against the neighbors and their kids.
prudish social conservatism is not some newfangled judeochristian invention, it is simply human nature. the gut human reaction at seeing someone more successful than you procreatively or materially is anger, and this anger is evolutionarily advantageous: to work hard at limiting your fellow man's success and enjoyment in life, so that you may have some success yourself.
so sex is is fun, sex is pleasurable, sex is good, sex is harmless... unless it is someone else having it. then it is bad. is this selfish? absolutely. and evolutionarily advantageous. and therefore hardwired into how our brains function: there is no way the neighbor's children are going to get more bananas than my children, so there is no way the neighbors are going to freely have sex without my approval
in this perverse way, the urge to prevent other people from enjoying sex is the same urge underlying the desire for social justice, for equality: you can't have more than me, its not fair. community standards on sex is simply the most primitive form of birth control. no, that's not "just say no", that's "you have sex and i'll punish you, because your children are taking resources from my children"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So lets consider the Wookiee in all of this. I tell you it just doesn't make sense.
The defense rests.
...you'd have people doinking each other willy nilly in the streets. Chaos!
A little almost on topic background to the cliche "Hoist with his own petard" before getting entirely ON topic:
My thought on using google trends is that perhaps the petard hasn't yet detonated, and may well not detonate at all.The only reason one would look up "apple pie" would be to get a recipe for it. And "orgy" could mean, according to wikipedia, asecret cultic congregation at nighttime in Ancient Greek religion; a synth rock band from Los Angeles, California named "Orgy"; or a musical marathon radio format created by WHRB 95.3 in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Perhaps the defense should look up some other words besides "apple pie" and "orgy". Perhaps "vinyl siding" and "anal sex" would be better search terms. Surely the prosecution will see this and counter.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I seem to remember a case in Utah where a local obscenity ordinance was being used to try an shut down a video rental store. The argument was local values in the town didn't truck with XXX videos.
The defense got anonymized records from one of the big hotels right across the street from the video rental. It showed that in-room, adult movie rentals were quite popular -- well above the national average. It also showed that the majority of those renting were from the local area, and not out of town perverts.
The defense showed that the "local values" were, in reality, not in line with the stuffy, Victorian puritanism that was being touted publicly. The defense won the case.
This Florida case strikes me as very similar.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
There was apparently an incident at Euro Disney where the costumed characters simulated sexual activity. People caught cellphone video of it, and it infected the news cycle as the "Mouse Orgy". This seems to have caused the spike.
This is one of the few books I remember clearly and I read it at school over 20 years ago! Highly recommended.
As it turns out, 2006 showed a pretty big uptick in "anal sex" hits.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=surfing%2C+orgy%2C+apple+pie%2C+anal+sex&ctab=0&geo=US&geor=usa.fl&date=all&sort=0
it has good, bad, and uly qualities. that some of human nature's qualities are ugly or bad does not mean they magically go away, or ever will go away. they are constants, across all time and all cultures. things like envy, jealousy: these are natural aspects of our psychology. ther are not taught to children, they are inherent in how our brains work. they are self-apparent and self-creating. do i like envy and jealousy? no, but i accept them as inescable quantities in the people around me. wishing them away will not go away. furthermore, my view of human nature i balanced, not bleak. there is plenty good about human nature to balance out the bad
and you wish to babble about "the culture of feast and sharing" versus "the culture of famine and war". huh? whatever those constructs are, as most charitably as i can say it is, if such things exist, they are contemporaneous. there is no magical replacement of one or the other. we are our own best friends, and our own worst enemies, all at the same time
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
we are rich in the west today. as such, we have more sex than our poorer ancestors, and just as much sex as the roman emperors. western prudishness is very much been defeate by the relative richness of our lives compared to the past or other cultures, or did you mix the 1960s?
in the past, the rich also had rich sex lives. that rich people can escape social mores is not an amazing concept. nor is it true that there was some magical past when all love was free. the average roman was most definitely not having the sex life of caligula. you cannot draw conclusions about the lives of past poor people from the decadence of past rich people
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
to be more precise, i find your historical anecdotes to be petarded
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Human nature has two natural modes that are resource dependent. In times of plentiful resources, sharing and cooperation make more sense. There are always local scarcities and disasters, so when a society has more than enough in general, it makes the most sense to share and cooperate, to build support networks.
In times of famine, it makes sense to look after yourself and your own, and not to share with others. What is so hard to understand about that?
Of course things like jealousy and envy are natural, but they are not the only natural emotional responses to a given situation. One can feel pleasure in the accomplishments of another. One can enjoy it when one's friends or partner makes other friends, or even takes other lovers. One does not have to feel threatened. Although both types of responses are natural, it is the culture one grows up in that determines which response is more natural for you.
I gave you a good reference, at least glance at it. You may also want to examine Saharasia by James DeMeo. It makes a case that the culture of famine was mentally 'locked in' to most societies around 4500BC, when the first huge climate change after the development of agriculture happened.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
that at the time of the agricultural revolution, when food forever more became reliable rather than a mad scramble, suddenly we all got locked into famine thinking
i'm sorry, but this is stupid
but you don't have to listen to me. history is replete with utopianists. go close your eyes about human nature, make believe everything will be magically bountiful with the right "insights" (ie, delusions) about humanity... go found your utopia... and it always fails
because human nature is fixed in all the awful ways you wish to magically explain away, even though all of humanity has always behaved these awful ways in every time period, in every culture, and will behave so forever more. these negative aspects of human nature are not in flux as you think they are, nor are they bound to be influenced by these artifical constructs you represent here which just seem to be some sort of fantasy wish fulfillment
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
in the privacy of their own homes, more people in Pensacola are interested in 'orgy' than "apple pie'."
I think for the most part, the majority of us are interested in both.
They're not my historical anecdotes, they're wikipedia's. You can change it if you want (but they'll change it right back).
Since you obviously have a problem with wikipedia's accuracy, I looked it up on uncyclopedia. Unfortionately, according to the uncyclopedia, petards don't exist. But Picard does. According to uncyclopedia, what Shakespeare said was "He was hoist by his own Picard".
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
The problem that I see with this issue is that it isn't *really* about protecting the children so much as protecting one's self from having to encounter something that makes one squeamish.
Pictures of naked women painted to look like cows (for example) are pretty darn weird. A lot of people are well within their rights to be freaked out by the existence of such pictures. They are exactly the sort of thing that makes someone squeamish. But does that, in and of itself, mean they should be illegal?
In a country that is founded upon personal freedom, the answer is "no." In a country founded on moral oppression the answer is "yes," but America is not (at least in theory) such a country. Here the acid test is (or at least should be) "is it directly harmful to a human." And, in the case of these pictures, the answer is obviously, "no."
I have friends who are fond of saying, "I will fight to the death to defend your right to free speech" (interestingly enough, none of them have actually joined the military, but that is beside the point). They like to pretend to be patriotic. In my opinion, a REAL patriot would say, "I will fight to the death to defend your right to do things that freak me the fuck out."
What are they, dead there??? Come on people, let's get with the program...
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
>Sexual intercourse is meant to be an act performed in private for the two parties that love and care for each other deeply enough to create a stronger bond.
In tribal cultures everyone knows who is doing who and when. Ditto when the whole extended family slept in one or two rooms. Ditto for all bodily functions.
For the mandatory obscenity checks described in the other article.
when they said "you seen one apple pie, you seen em all".
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
Apple pie? what is that?
http://www.google.com/trends?q=surfing%2C+orgy%2C+apple+pie&ctab=0&geo=CA&geor=all&date=all&sort=0
..can show some interesting information.
For instance, if we graph biology, chemistry and, physics, we can see that chemistry comes in the lead followed by physics and finally biology. There is a concerning drop over summer break and Christmas holidays...
i said human nature was good bad and ugly
"Why do you feel so threatened by the idea that humans may have a natural, caring, cooperative side to their nature?"
i don't feel threatened by that, because that they have this side is 100% true, and something i am quite comfortable with and happy about, and something i never denied, want to deny, or have a reason to deny to have a sound understanding of human nature. but just as constant is humanity's selfish craven jealous side. see how that works?
the issue is that you think one side of human nature can come to dominate, and the other side just disappears
no, this is ironclad tomfoolery
but i'm wrong, because of vitamin b and myelin sheaths...
!!!
congratulations, with that bullshit, you achieved crackpot status
dude, go start your utopia. why are you wasting your time trying to convince me, i'm obviously a harpy of the culture of famine, or whatever the appropriate bullshit verbiage is
go dude. start your utopia. stop wasting your time here in the culture of war with the unenlightened like me
(snicker)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Clearly there is a simple connection. People get hungry for desert after their orgy.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Obscenity laws? A court case over what pr0n someone wants to watch? JIHAD!
But seriously.. WTF? This is very rediculous.
But us Britons are more interested in our national foodstuff, the cup of tea, than an orgy:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=orgy%2C+tea&ctab=0&geo=GB&geor=all&date=all&sort=1
QED
If I were wanting to show a really compelling case via search terms I would use "bible, jesus, porn, surfing, nascar". "Porn" blows them all out of the water. Here is my Google trends search for that area in the last 30 days with these terms
it emphasized altruism over selfishness
and utterly failed
because people's selfish nature was still an aspect of the cogs in the machine, it still asserted itself: "why should i work when i will guaranteed a share of society no matter what?" everything ground to a halt. there was no motivation
whether or not you consider that a valid representation of communism, the fact is, communism attempted to nurture one side of human nature, and failed
human society and its rules must mirror the nature of the humans it is being imposed upon, or such as society will fail. human society and its laws must perform a balancing act
there is no such thing emphasizing one aspect over another. if you do, you will simply wind up with a revolution and be replaced
"Human nature has both positive and negative aspects. Culture and learning can emphasize one side or the other of this nature. What is so hard to understand about that?"
no: culture and learning do nothing, absolutely nothing to bring out the positive and repress the negative. mainly because your entire metric of what is positive and negative are complete bullshit. they are two sides of the same coin. selfishness can be good in some ways, and altruism can cause suffering in some ways. both must exist in balance, none dominating the other
repeat: you cannot change human nature with culture learning. it simply is what it is, a constant across all cultures and time periods
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The Conservative viewpoint is constructed around the basic principle that there are certain things which it is vitally important not to appear to condone.
I live in Pensacola.
Um, yeah.
fail? Sure, the Soviet Union failed. Communism can't succeed or fail, it is an ideology. How it is implemented can fail (or succeed). Communism fails to scale up in non homogeneous societies. The typical family unit often employs communism. Resources are shared. Your statement is almost like pointing to Iraq and saying that democracy failed (naysayers would say "but they just need more time!!!").
it's like listening to a creationist, or a ufo enthusiast
your particular brand of nutjobbery is this: everyone is essentailly a loving being, and it is culture that teaches us violence, and evil, and suffering. that none of these things are innate in ourselves
"Humans are naturally more cooperative than selfish. In fact, it is culture that emphasizes selfishness."
wow, just wow. what do you say to this sort of nonsense? its stupefying
i don't know if i have the depth of intellectual charity to stoop to the kindergarten level required to open your eyes to this particular huge blind spot, nor the time, nor the space in this thread. you're too far gone
but don't worry dude, take my nonresponsiveness to mean i have no way to back up my assertions and you've totally proved me wrong, yeah ;-P
perhaps i can offer you simply this:
go into a classroom full of 3 year olds. watch their behavior for simply 15 minutes, no more. in that time, you will see the heights of kindness, and the pits of cruelty, all in that microcosm of humanity. because BOTH instincts towards selfish and altruistic behavior are INNATE, not taught
now i will hear from you how the cruel ones have already been corrupted by bad parents, and how they can still be taught to have sunlight come of their assholes, etc., etc., etc.
zzz...
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
http://www.google.com/trends?q=surfing%2C+porn%2C+apple+pie&ctab=0&geo=US&geor=usa.fl&date=all&sort=1
thegodmovie.com - watch it
You cannot change human nature with culture learning, eh? Then perhaps you'd like to refute this quotation:
sure, we don't have to fight and scrounge for food anymore, but this has only been true for the last century. which, not coincidentally, the last century has seen a relaxation of sexual mores. I think what this guy is saying is that our culture has changed because of changes in resources, and this has produced a profound change in the nature of human sexuality. Oh wait, that guy was YOU. Fucking idiot. You can't even stay consistent in your own ideas. Why do I always get sucked into pointless arguments with obstreperous morons? You'd think I'd have learned by now...- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
If we are enforcing our opinions on obscenity on others, we are little different than the Islamists who are enforcing their belief that women showing any skin are being obscene.
females invest their time and effort in a child and a man and need to keep that unit intact to further their reproductive success. they cannot have another female enticing the male that other fruits lie elsewhere. open sexuality endangers their genes. therefore right there is incentive enough to punish any "slutish" females, ie, any females partaking of open enjoyment of sex. this is just too threatening to have in open society for their reproductive success
there are a number of other scenarios where, in terms of selfish genes, it makes sense to limit access to, enjoyment of, and open displays of sex
of course in a society such as ours, with birth control, and unlimited access to food, and disease control, etc., limiting sex is pointless. in fact, in such very recent rich societies, sexual attitudes have been liberating. but i'm not talking about behavior in such rare, barely recent societies. i'm talking about behavior in the vast majority of human experience in time and cultures: poor and suffering and scrambling. such that these sexual dilemnas are now pretty much hardwired in our emotional makeup. feelings of jealousy are unnecessary, and yet there they are nonetheless
just like it doesn't make sense that men are still attracted to large breasts. there's plenty of food, no need to be attracted to female bodies with a reproductive insurance policy of healthy tissue reserves. and yet we still are attracted to large female breasts. simply because we are hard wired that way. does it make sense anymore? no. it doesn't need to make sense now, its all about how we've been wired for survival in a different time and place
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
it doesn't help to turn into a spastic hysterical twit. it might falsify your claims that a calm nurturing altruism is your dominant nature
(snicker)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Some scholars say "yes."
Others say he still is.
I'm only following your lead, asshole. I never said altruism is MY dominant nature, I'm a fucking asshole. Sorry, no hippy peace and love here, just science.
I kept it civil in the face of increasing hostility from you, but you had to keep pushing. Now I let out a little bit of what you've been trying to dish and you turn into a whiny schoolgirl. Have a little spine and some self respect, you fucking cuntflap.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
For thousands of years, the big reason to control a woman's sex was so you, her husband or father, knew who fathered her children.
Now, with birth control and in some societies abortion widely available, it's less of an issue.
If today's western liberal sexual attitudes prevailed in a pre-pill environment, the number of children born to either unmarried mothers or mothers not married to the child's father would be way higher than it was. The results would've changed society.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
follow you did
to the complete dissolution of your entire point
i am teh winnar!
flawless victory!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Apparently the Liberal viewpoint is constructed around willful ignorance of anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with it.
Nah, that's just basic to human nature.
Anybody who has ever worked in a bar, and had to clean up after a person (typically a woman) in a skirt with no underwear on has sat on a bar stool knows why public nudity is a bad thing.
The euphemism is "snail trail" and it is grotesque...
That said, I have enjoyed being naked in public at places like a nude beach where there is no common accommodation and everybody is sitting on their own private towel, and that is fine.
The reason that we don't want people screwing in the streets can be easily reduced to manners. No need for higher moral cause handed down from some all-father. _EVERYBODY_ has a list of "sexual acts" they never want to participate in, or see, or even have to acknowledge. I've never seen "two girls one cup" but the fact that I even know it exists has diminished me in some way. If I had to run the risk of seeing that happen at any street corner bistro would keep me from leaving my house.
Society, like any good fiction, knows that the more explicit sex you put in the plain text, the more you diminish your saleability and limit your audience to a niche.
Now I have no interest in barring people from going to a "sex club" (where, hopefully, they have pressure washers for daily use 8-) because in that circumstance the attendees know before hand what they can expect to see.
But in real life, the idea of all those people at the supermarket being naked, scratching their asses and then checking the tomatoes for freshness, or getting santorum all over the pop-tarts is repugnant. Not that cross-contamination never happens, but making it the expected default does not advance civilization.
So, I vote no to public nudity of the pedestrian sort, while voting yes to the public nudity of may specific sorts.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
> it's not like there once was a time in human history when love was free and sex was easy.
I call bullshit on this one. I think we were less the chimpanzee and more the bonobo kind of ape, and churches fodbid sex to control people by making them sinners for wanting the most basic and most important thing(s) in our existence.
So *fuck religion*... fuck eveything... literally! :P
ON K5?
want to spank the monkey real quick, what better way than to search "orgy" on google? Out of the multiple girls there, one or two are bound to be fine. That's what I do, search for something like that, and hit images next. Easier than deciding on porn sometimes or if I am on the bus. You know how it is you sexless nerds.
"she's a slut, no she's a slut!"
it's not from culture, it's from basic female psychology: the female that is promsicuous puts all the females at risk because their investment in a male for caregiving duties is under threat to be stolen
the group polices the behavior of the individuals to keep the sexual power in line
of course infidelity continues, its just secret and quiet
so yeah, we screw a lot, just like bonobos, but its all hush hush, that's the big difference: not that sex doesn't occur, but that sex doesn't occur OPENLY
we're the thinking apes. as such, it naturally follows that we're also the ones to lie the most. a better name for homo sapiens is homo hypocritus
but there is no better life in telling the truth about sex, about having our sexuality in public: it just runs too roughshod of our craven psychosexual motivations, we set ourselves up to be attacked by those just acting the way homo sapiens act about sex for selfish genetic reasons
so we continue in our special secret, lying homo sapiens way with our sexuality. we screw, a lot, we do. it's just that this particular ape does it secretly
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Unfortunately the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it, owing to the nature of the laws, as a matter of community standards and stifling of free expression and so on, but we know what's really involved: dirty movies are fun.
Queue the song, "Smut".
if germany prevents you from reading nazi literature, it is the same KIND of censorship as china not allowing you to read any criticism of the government whatsoever. however, as you can obviously see, the DEGREE AND SCALE of the censorship is hugely different. you can still read tons of media criticizing the government in germany
likewise, preventing you from watching women perform blowjobs on guys in the bushes is the same KIND of sexual morality enforcement as muslim fundamentalists wrapping women from head to toe. however, it is obviously to a much greater DEGREE AND SCALE. you can go to any city in the usa and watch women walk around in tube tops and miniskirts
i am not defending the censorship of the pornography websites. but i am saying that it is a much more minor transgression on your freedom than what goes on in fundamentalist muslim countries. and that matters
in other words, we don't have to be a perfect society in order to criticize societies that are a lot lower on the scale of freedom
so many times you will see criticism of say, chinese censorship, and then someone responds "yeah well, fox news spouts propaganda, so its the same thing!"
no, it is not the same thing at all
and simply because fox news exists does not mean we have to stop criticizing china. you can read any damn media you want in the usa, form any country. in china, you can't see or read anything that remotely criticizes the government. and if you criticize the government in china, you are subject to punishment. do you think twice about criticizing gw bush? no. that matters a hell of a lot more than fox news existing or not
sp if another society commits a crime to a much greater order of magnitude, they are perfectly valid targets for criticism, even if your own society engages in the same sort of crime, TO A MUCH LESSER DEGREE AND SCALE
otherwise, the most liberal society in the world, with the teensiest bit of social enforcement, cannot criticize the most oppressive regime on the world. of course it can. of course it SHOULD
some people just have absolutely ridiculous, impossible standards before you are allowed to criticize others. this speaks volumes about their own character flaws, but it says nothing about a real and valid basis for criticizing others in the real world
no, you do not have to be a saint before you can criticize others. if your society's crimes are much less than another society's crimes, you have every right and moral authority to criticize the much worse society. NO society can ever be perfect. so expecting someone to be perfect ebfore they can criticize simply means there will be no progress possible in this world. its an impossible standard to live up to
so frankly, your words:
"If we are enforcing our opinions on obscenity on others, we are little different than the Islamists who are enforcing their belief that women showing any skin are being obscene."
is complete and utter bullshit
we are VERY different, even if we slid a hell of whole lot on the scale of censorship and freedom, we'd still be a lot more free than say press freedoms in china or russia or personal freedoms in saudi arabia or iran
and we have every right and moral authority to criticize those societies for that fact, because of the concepts of DEGREE AND SCALE
it makes a difference
it does
learn that
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Below is the full text of a reply to this article from a friend in email. I just want to judge the response from the gallery. (He does not know that I am posting this, hence I felt AC to be an appropriate author). In particular, I brought this post by Tom to his attention: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=593517&cid=23916603
Here is their response:
weird... This is complete bullshit and utterly wierd, I hate when the
"sociologically conscience" go on random outbursts that rely on poor
reasoning.
This ideology should be a no-brainer for anyone who understands the
realities of the intellectually evolutionized (is that a word?) world.
The foundations for this argument is rationalized through moral
standards and the holding of the public to higher levels of control.
Sex is the causation for many emotions, both negative and positive.
Utilizing this basis as a standard shows why legislature essentially
"protects" the public through policing powers when confounded with
"sex" related topics. It is the duty of the law to protect the public
from obscenity for two reasons in particular, the people regard these
obscenities as relatively bad and the unauthorized/unwilling
subjection to obscenity goes against the "natural born" god granted
rights afforded by the foundational legislature of the united states.
In other words and for the most part, my subjection to anything which
I do not wish to be subjected to is a breach of the subjecting parties
reasonable diligence due to society.
Now the reasoning behind being 18 before being legally allowed to be
subjected to these behaviors (strip clubs etc.) comes directly from
the basis of majority age. 18 is the legal age at which a person is
said to be "competent" enough to contract, thus they have the
capabilities to understand the decisions they make and be held to them
regardless of the context.
Look up the legal definition of crime vs. tort and you will have your
answer, to why this "social epidemic" occurs.
PS. I hate this garbage, but heres a better search on google trends....
http://www.google.com/trends?q=surfing%2C+pussy%2C+sex%2C+fuck%2C+apple+pie&ctab=0&geo=US&geor=usa.fl&date=all&sort=0
Experience can change a human in a blink of an eye. Genes changes us over millenia. Culture serves as a collection of "rules of thumb" collected by a society and changes in the course of generations.
Culture is the way it is today because it have been an efficient organization of our society. Thinking of sex as a taboo most likely came with cities and large numbers of people living close together. Casual sex certainly transmits diseases. Culture changed to make this behavior unacceptable. A mix of darwinism and common sense adding up over the years.
Sex and morality is reforming these days because we have birth control and disease control. It's not as dangerous as it was before. I assume our genes are coded for more casual sex. If it wasn't in our genes, affairs and one-night stands would be unheard of.
I expect it to settle on a level of sexual openness that we can safely have, given current technologies for preventing disease or accidental pregnancy.
I lost my sig.
I thought this was news for nerds
For those who are interested, try this iGoogle gadget: http://www.google.com/ig/directory?url=lchen5.googlepages.com/gt.xml You can specify terms and monitor their trends in iGoogle.
Thank you. You just gave me an idea for search terms of spanking material. Party time!
The argument presented rests on the false assumption that people googling things do so in proportion to their interests or activities in general.
That's not true. For example, people can get porn on the web immediately. People cannot get apple pie on the web immediately. So people would probably sit down to google porn more often than googling apple pie.
By the same rationale, people are probably unlikely to google 'breathing', although they breathe a lot more than they watch porn.
The consenting human who is being injured(really injured) may very well be an idiot who doesn't care that society has to pay the cost for his injuries being cared for.