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'."

Comments

Hyprocrisy in the South--film at eleven!

[elrous0]

Has anyone with even the slightest bit of observational ability EVER doubted this? Small town hicks surf nasty pron just as much as anyone else.

Other startling revelations from small town Southern life to anyone without half a brain:

• Most people sitting in church services don't really believe most of that shit in the Bible and are just there for the social and networking aspects of church activities.
• Married pastors are just as likely to cheat as married laymen.
• The girl in high school who most loudly proclaims herself a virgin isn't.
• The redneck politician who yells "family values" at every opportunity has no values.
• The people that use the term "college boy" derisively are the same people who were too stupid for college--and they know it.
• Etc.

Re:Petard, meet hoist.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll hide as an AC!

What you are saying is that nudity is taboo and you note the reason is because the fiction novel, The Bible, says so. Not all societies felt that removing clothing is an affront to modesty and morality. Christians, Muslims, and Jews seem to be the ones that have the hard time with this area. Perhaps you should self-reflect over whether the supposed affront to modesty and morality is due to fairy tales (religions) or an actual requirement for good human social relations. Considering that for most of the last 100,000 years that humans have worn barely more than sheepskins (if they were lucky), I'd say that the later reason is unlikely. I'd say that clothing resulted from our need to protect ourselves from our environment, not from each other.

wow

[circletimessquare]

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...