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'."
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
I do agree with your views on sex and nudity. I'll go even further to say that it is very wrong to live a promiscuous lifestyle (for which there are many reasons). But to impose your morals on someone else and restrict freedom is probably the greatest crime. The problem that people don't realize is that the law exists to keep a society running. Society then exists to keep morals themselves in check. Don't like what one society believes, then move. But distributing such judgment on a large scale wont let you move to stay happy. That's why I believe much more in state government. There should be some cities that allow drug use, nudism, etc. However, a system that allows political experimentation is a long way from happening with the whole of governments acting like some uptight monarchy. If I were more into politics than science, I would start some movement to have these restrained minorities unite on some website and plan to move in mass to desolate areas where their vote counts heavily. However that is one arduous process that I hope someone else takes on.
Help fight spam
You forgot the 4th reason people crave privacy: safety.
People involved in the act tend to be focused on what they're doing, or at least distracted. That puts you at risk for outside threats and our instincts are to do risky things in safe environments.
Some part of the brain starts yelling "Hey, you are very exposed right now!" and it has a very visceral impact on the person depending on their mindset. The sensations range from a thrill (for the exhibitionist) to anxiety ("normal" people) all the way to psyche scarring shame (for the repressed).
I've been on slashdot so long I'm starting to get out of touch with the cool stuff if it ain't on slashdot.
it does not really matter whether this is the bible or rule of law. If the society in general does not wish to be confronted with fat people making strange noises than it is so. I do not mind being seen by whoever pervert wants to look through my windows when I do it with my wife, my wife does and that pretty much resolves the issue for us. I suppose the same applies to large groups of people. However the case in question is not about fat bodies making noises in public but about ISP hosting 'obscene' service i.e. most likely you have to log on to see anything or at least you have to click on some link to get there. This makes it different and thus I do not think the courts have anything to say about it as although it is available for t he public it is possible to avoid it if one wants.
What judge will decide is another thing altogether. They have their own view and possibly this will go all the way to supreme court where it gets treatment 'once and for all'.