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'."

83 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. Petard, meet hoist. by Jaysyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is awesome.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
    1. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by FredFredrickson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the state that I live (NH), obscene is defined by anything that most likely would cause "affront or alarm." This, of course, leaves a lot for interpretation. My new hair cut could be considered obscene.

      The question is simple: why are natural things like nudity, sex, and sexual intercourse considered obscene to begin with? Is it neccessary for society to function? Is it important to have a line drawn somewhere, for fear that if the line gets pushed, even more extreme things may become the norm? (Killing babies, public self mutiliation, goatse)?

      I, of course, don't support public obscenities and indecencies- it's just plainly wrong to do some things in public. But then I try to think why it is, and can't seem to find a good answer. Is it because that's how I was brought up, and that's how I learned it should be?

      There are a lot of things that I learned as I grew up that don't actually make sense. Is it possible that some things are just the way we've always done it, and that's why it shouldn't change? My parents spoon fed me loads of crap, how am I supposed to seperate the truth (shouldn't run around naked in public) from all the lies (go to church or you'll go to hell)?

      As an interesting side note, if he really wants to make a point, he should add a new term to the trends- Google Trends. (Additionally, he shouldn't have public news like this- people will skew the trends when they find out about it.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    2. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by Potor · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Not really. FTA:

      The Google service does, however, show the relative strength of many mainstream queries in Pensacola: "Nascar," "surfing" and "Nintendo" all beat "orgy."

      Lawyers can select any word combination that is helpful to them. Nothing here more than a new way to load an argument.

    3. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      In the state that I live (NH), obscene is defined by anything that most likely would cause "affront or alarm." This, of course, leaves a lot for interpretation. My new hair cut could be considered obscene. What? Do you have a penis and balls shaved onto the top of your head? Next time don't pass out drunk at a party, lightweight.
    4. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by mo^ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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. Citation please. my high-school biology seemed t indicate it was for procreation. I can find nothing to indicate that the point of fucking is to be private.

      Do you censure fish who conduct the act of procreation on a mass scale in front of other fish?

      --
      bah!*@%!
    5. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by PakProtector · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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. When you put that on public display, the act is reduced to a trite sensuality.

      Says who? Last time I checked, there were thre reasons for doing something in private: You believe the world has no right to know your private affairs, or you're ashamed of what you're doing, or you fear the repercussions of your action.

      Last time I check, Sexual Intercourse was a natural biological function that had nothing to do with mutual love or regard. It can have those qualities, but those are not inherent in the act itself.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    6. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by jefu · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      Interesting statement. "meant" - by whom? Who says it should be performed in private (except people nowadays)?

      You're assuming quite a bit, I suspect. I, on the other hand, know for sure that the FSM meant for sexual intercourse to be performed in large tubs of grated parmesan cheese by dozens of people at once.

    7. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by Nursie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "...intercourse is meant to be an act performed in private for the two parties that love and care for each other..."

      That's your interpretation. It's not everyone's by any means.

      Ask most men in their early 20s and you'll find that intercourse is an act performed wherever and whenever they can get away with it with whoever is looking good that day.

      Ask a lot of young women of today and they'll tell you much the same (though probably a little less extreme).

      Ask polyamourists, swingers, exhibitionists etc, you'll get a different answer every time.

      What's "meant to be", that depends on who you ask. To me it sounds like a religious proclamation.

      this is not to say I want to see fat people screwing in the streets, just that not everyone thinks the way you do.

    8. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by tgd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I, of course, don't support public obscenities and indecencies- it's just plainly wrong to do some things in public. I disagree. What you think is wrong is an opinion and you should explicitly have no right to influence the behavior of others, where that behavior isn't causing *demonstrable* harm to others, on the basis of your opinion.

      My parents spoon fed me loads of crap, how am I supposed to seperate the truth (shouldn't run around naked in public) from all the lies (go to church or you'll go to hell)? And there's the problem. You're assuming that there's some inherent truth to a claim that people shouldn't be running around naked in public -- when there's pretty substantial evidence from cultures going back to pre-history that there's not a bit of problem with it at all.

      This is why your opinion (or anyone's -- I'm not picking on you) should be explicitly disallowed when defining what behavior is acceptable. Prove its causing harm to others in a way that others can't choose to avoid it, or learn to deal with it. You may personally believe you don't want to see others walking around naked (and based on the current obesity epidemic in the US, you're probably right), but if it really bothers you then you can avoid going into those public places. You have no inherent right to be comfortable outside of your home.
       

    9. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by bickerdyke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The question is simple: why are natural things like nudity, sex, and sexual intercourse considered obscene to begin with? Because it is such a private and special act, despite the act having been demeaned over the past 60+ years. And that's the problem. 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. When you put that on public display, the act is reduced to a trite sensuality. And now go and tell that to the Bonobos! :-) You may be right with the last 60+ years, but if you think back say 1000 years, with at least one peasant family living in a crowded hut. If it were *that* private back then, mankind wouldnt have survived till now. Someone here has any clue when it became a private act in the first place? Had to be some time after our anchestors descended from the trees.
      --
      bickerdyke
    10. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The question is simple: why are natural things like nudity, sex, and sexual intercourse considered obscene to begin with? Simple answer: They don't make the rich richer.

      Suppressed sexual energy can be canalized for profit.

      Is it possible that some things are just the way we've always done it, and that's why it shouldn't change? That's what conservatism is all about.
      Except that it isn't even that things have always been like that, just that they are perceived that way. Take the pledge of allegiance, "under god" was added LONG after it was first uttered, but conservatives want to keep it because this is the version they heard first, so they assume it's how it always was. They oppose change because it's different from what they were told was right, therefore it must be wrong.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    11. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by Mortice · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree with your first paragraph, even if it's not a popular opinion. In spite of all of the arguments from biology - that it's a natural function of living, all animals do it in some shape or form, etc. - it's obvious to me that sex has a special place in human thought and society, and that a large part of the apparatus of modern society depends upon us acting contrary to our animal urges.

      On the other hand, I disagree with your second paragraph. You identify two possible intentions for the portrayal of people in the nude (and I question how common the first is as a primary intention - it is undoubtedly a common consequence), but not a great many others. Michaelangelo's David is nude, but not in order to demean the subject or to titillate the observer. The same could be said for a great many works of art and photography.

    12. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by Danse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because it is such a private and special act, despite the act having been demeaned over the past 60+ years. And that's the problem. 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. When you put that on public display, the act is reduced to a trite sensuality. Whole lot of preconceived notions and assumptions in that paragraph. The indoctrination goes deeper than you may believe. Who says it should always be private, or particularly special? Who says it should only be with someone you love and care deeply for? Why do you consider sensuality to be trite?
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    13. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The question is simple: why are natural things like nudity, sex, and sexual intercourse considered obscene to begin with? Is it neccessary for society to function? Is it important to have a line drawn somewhere, for fear that if the line gets pushed, even more extreme things may become the norm? No. To control a society through fear (of terrorism, eternal damnation, or whatever the meme of the day is) you need to make sure that said fear is present at all times.

      Sexuality is an excellent choice for a religion-dominated control-through-fear approach. It's one of the strongest natural drives, but contrary to hunger, thirst or the opposite bodily functions, you can actually suppress it for a long time. Thus you can have "good" examples to tell all the normal people that they are abnormal, evil, and will certainly go to hell unless... and the unless is what puts you in power.

      Worked in Europe for almost two thousand years. In some more primitive parts of the world, including certain regions of Europe and the US, it still works quite well.

      It is precisely because nudity and sex are such normal and natural things that they are made taboo.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    14. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Last time I check, Sexual Intercourse was a natural biological function that had nothing to do with mutual love or regard. I'd guess it's been quite a while since you checked? There may be a reason for that.
    15. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because [sex] is such a private and special act...

      Um, no. Sex is not particularly special, the majority of adults have had it. It's considered private in our culture, but in other cultures a couple living in a one room hut with a couple of kids will think nothing of getting it on while the kids are there.

      (Sex with someone you love is, hopefully, a special thing. But then, going out to dinner with someone you love is, hopefully, a special thing - it's the "with someone you love" that makes it special, not the act itself.)

      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.

      Sexual intercourse is "meant" to be an act performed to make more members of the screwing couple's species. Anything additional is a social or psychological construct. Which doesn't mean that adding to it is good or bad - but seeking "meaning" in biology is not a useful endeavor.

      Certainly, in the Judeo-Christian value system that Europe and the US was brought up in, we were taught that once Adam & Eve ate the fruit and became smart, they put clothes on - to be in public without clothes on is an affront to modesty and morality.

      Ancient Hebrew mythology about talking snakes, magical trees, and why all the problems in the world are the fault of a woman, is not a good reason for pointing guns at people and locking them in cages if they step outside with no clothes on.

      Any purported system of morality that claims public nudity to be immoral has left any vestige of rationality behind. Hundreds of people have seen me naked (at events like this and this and this) and no one has been harmed.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    16. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by Hojima · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    17. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by James+McP · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.
    18. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by Shoten · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First off, let me say that I admire your stance on not posting as Anonymous Coward. I wish more people would associate themselves with their views when they know that they're saying something that will be unpopular.

      Okay...I'm not sure where sexual acts have been demeaned for 60+ years. Depending on the threshold for "demean," it's either been 10+ years or 3500+ years (when you consider that the "+" is not like a price bid on "The Price is Right," so that you've got the best guess as long as you don't go over the real number). If you're referring to the prevalence of pornography on the Internet, and the explosion of variety that can be found there, then I'd go with the lower number. If you're talking about pornography in general, including group sex, homosexual acts or even acts with humans and animals together, then I'd go with the latter. There are depictions of sexual acts going back to ancient Chinese dynasties and even before that would certainly be considered more extreme than what is being put forth on trial here.

      The real question in my mind is this: if civilizations have been depicting sexual activity for thousands of years, then what's the problem? Last I saw, every aspect of mankind has managed to advance during that time...what's the problem that some people are claiming exists?

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    19. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by Robert1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Meant by society. There are societal norms present in every culture. Its not so much 'meant' as it is 'what is expected or regular.'

      Culturally it's 'regular' or 'expected' that two people have sex alone or privately. I don't think society as a whole believes that 'sexual intercourse to be performed in large tubs of grated parmesan cheese by dozens of people at once' is regular.

      Granted, I don't think either choice should be regulated, but I think its naive of you to believe that there is no relative consensus about things like this in every society. That is to say, that society does not perceive 'sex as a private act between two people' and 'cheese orgy' as equally palatable (pun unintended) or socially acceptable.

    20. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by Evanisincontrol · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      What do you mean "meant to"? As far as I know, the only thing sex is "meant to" do is allow for continuation of a species and to pass genes. The only time sex has any kind of emotion attached to it is when YOU attach it yourself. Sex by itself cannot have any special meaning unless you intentionally interpret it as such.

      That being said, your interpretation of sex should have nothing to do with mine. Obviously there are conflicts -- i.e. if my interpretation of sex is "I get to rape anyone I want including Mactyn", then there's an issue we need to work out. However, me walking around naked (though I don't) should not directly impact you. If you let my public nudity change your own interpretation of sex, that is your problem, not mine.

      Certainly, in the Judeo-Christian value system that Europe and the US was brought up in, we were taught that once Adam & Eve ate the fruit and became smart, they put clothes on - to be in public without clothes on is an affront to modesty and morality. Didn't those two little harlots get kicked out of heaven for that?
    21. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by torkus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is great - in theory (i'd spend +mod points if I had) and I wish reality matched up.

      Unfortunately in the USA people seem to feel they deserve to be comfortable, protected, and coddled anywhere and everywhere they go. How about the FCC complaints about radio (much less TV) in the past few years? Seriously, turn it off or just change the station. Instead, certain people feel the need to impose their own moral views on the greater population.

      As far as 'truths' - some people would emphatically argue that !church == hell *IS* 100% true. Those same people would probably also suggest that walking around nude would land you in hell as well. What it comes down to is your beliefs are your own. If they work for you, that's great. Just don't try to impose them on anyone else because, honestly, as strongly as you feel about them there's someone who feels just as strongly opposite them.

      Wasn't the USA supposed to be the land of freedom? Tolerance? Well that's the theory I suppose but the vast majority of laws seem to either 1) protect you from yourself (seatbelt or helmet laws) or 2) force you to live your life according to someone else's moral standards - which can vary *greatly* between individual states anyway (e.g. age of consent varies from 14 to 18 if memory serves).

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    22. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by PakProtector · · Score: 2, Informative

      I include that in the 'repercussions of my actions' category.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    23. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by torkus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually you made a very interesting comparison.

      Religion to terrorism. Not only do they go hand-in-hand often enough but they seem to operate on very similar principles.

      Terrorism - we hurt you with whatever means we have because you disagree with our views or don't follow our way of life.

      Religion - we threaten eternal damnation, expulsion from the community, and whatever else we can imply/coerce (and corporal/capital punishment particularly in older times) if you don't follow our views and ways of life.

      So yeah...

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    24. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by TractorBarry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > why are natural things like nudity, sex, and sexual intercourse considered obscene to begin with?

      Because the sex instinct is one of the most powerful forces at work in an individuals psyche. Control that and you can (to a large degree) control the individual.

      Why do you think we have societies which encourage widespread sexual repression but which advertise most goods with unsubtle hints about how their possession will get you more sex ?

      Why do you think that the people who make the most fuss about nudity, sex, other people enjoying themselves etc. always seem to turn out to have the strangest personal fetishes etc. etc. ?

      If people were getting more sex they wouldn't be so tensed up, they wouldn't be so paranoid/obsessed with what other people are doing (i.e. how much sex they're getting), they wouldn't buy so much unnecessary crap and we'd generally have a happier human population.

      "The word of Sin is Restriction. O man! refuse not thy wife, if she will! O lover, if thou wilt, depart! There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse. Accursed! Accursed be it to the aeons! Hell."

      --
      Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
    25. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by bob.appleyard · · Score: 2, Informative

      You could use Genesis as a post-facto justification, but that's not the only interpretation you could give, and it doesn't actually explain why privacy didn't become a concern with conversion, but emerged later.

      The assumption of privacy (with regards to sex and sleeping and stuff) in Christendom is more a result of the Little Ice Age than of any inherent moral concerns. During the Medieval Warm Period, there was a big hall where the lord and his maintainers all just slept together in. There was a fire in the middle, and it wafted out of the door. Privacy just wasn't an issue. When the winters got colder, you needed to close that door to kill the draft. This meant that chimneys needed to be invented, and beds needed some insulation, leading to four-poster beds, houses that were commonly more than one floor, and , ultimately, the assumption of privacy when sleeping.

      --
      How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
    26. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by mdozturk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Certainly, in the Judeo-Christian value system that Europe and the US was brought up in, we were taught that once Adam & Eve ate the fruit and became smart, they put clothes on - to be in public without clothes on is an affront to modesty and morality.

      Europe?!? I take it you never went to the Sauna in Finland. Even in Turkey you can go topless at any beach. Only in the US will you be thrown in jail for showing your bare breasts.

    27. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If we lived in a world free of religion, chances are sex and nudity would as blase as they are in the rest of the animal kingdom.

      Actually I don't believe that. Even in countries like Japan which do not have a Judeo Christian tradition there are taboos about sex and nudity. The fact is, if you're sentient and female sex is a big deal, because it can change your life if you get pregnant. So it's unlikely that women anywhere will be blase about sex because it is very important to them that they have sex with the right man. The right man being one that will support them when they are pregnant, because that is a vulnerable state. And with humans children are helpless for a very long time. Women need someone to protect their kids, and they need a mate to protect them, until those kids are independent. Which is something like 20 years.

      I'd say if you're sentient and male and intelligent sex is a big issue too. Because you want to make sure your kids are able to support their kids. Which require you give them a good start in life. And that takes time and money.

      The fact is that humans are K selectionspecies par excellence. And that makes sex a big deal.

      Actually I think in the absence of some mechanism like genetic memories, you probably need to be a K selection species to spread across the Universe. So if any aliens arrive in starships, I'd expect them not to be blase about sex either. Essentially if they evolved through a Darwinian process like we did, as opposed to some Lamarckian one which allowed genetic memories, the guys that run things will have a small number of offspring and try to get them through the alien equivalent of an Ivy League university

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    28. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by torkus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Michaelangelo's David is nude, but not in order to demean the subject or to titillate the observer

      Prove that. It's not that I entirely disagree but there is a lot of grey area. Many people assume that sexuality needs to be separated from everything else despite it being one of the primal urges. I disagree.

      Why can't David be titillating and art at the same time?

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    29. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by umghhh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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'.

    30. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by Technopaladin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Whole new meaning for "His Noodley Appendage"

    31. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ask a lot of young women of today and they'll tell you much the same (though probably a little less extreme). Ehm, I know single women up to their thirties thinking like this, much like the men. Welcome to the 2000's. :-)
      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    32. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by bryce4president · · Score: 2

      You are obviously male.

    33. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by RobBebop · · Score: 3, Funny

      Citation please. my high-school biology seemed t indicate it was for procreation.

      It is amazing how easily "procreation" and "procrastination" can be confused when you don't have your morning coffee.

      In either case, I agree!

      --
      Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
    34. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by PachmanP · · Score: 2, Funny

      Whole new meaning for "His Noodley Appendage"
      Actually, there is a body of research that suggests this was the original meaning, but that the faith has been corrupted and twisted with time.
      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    35. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think society as a whole believes that 'sexual intercourse to be performed in large tubs of grated parmesan cheese by dozens of people at once' is regular.

      Depends on which society you're talking about. Some consider that tame, less than regular. Never been to Burning Man, have you?
    36. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by johnny+cashed · · Score: 2, Funny

      You heard it here, from "Mr. Slippery".

    37. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by Josuah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To follow your example...the fish generally don't pretend to procreate for pleasure and no one objects when they DO procreate.

      There's evidence suggesting that fish do have sex for reasons other than procreation. Whether this be pleasure (fish can feel pain--I submit that if a creature can feel pain they can feel pleasure), or for other social reasons (see the paragraph about bonobos using sex to relieve tension), or to establish dominance (which I would argue the other animals aren't too happy about) the fact remains that human mores about sex appear to run counter to the rest of nature.

    38. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmm,

      That is interesting reasoning however, you have completely avoided the fact that we have managed to disconnect reproduction from sex?

      So afaict by YOUR very reasoning, sex should no longer be a "Big Issue" because it can now be practiced without needing to be concerned for the
      needs of offspring because they are only conceived when they are wanted and or ready for.

    39. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmm,

      That is interesting reasoning however, you have completely avoided the fact that we have managed to disconnect reproduction from sex?

      So afaict by YOUR very reasoning, sex should no longer be a "Big Issue" because it can now be practiced without needing to be concerned for the needs of offspring because they are only conceived when they are wanted and or ready for.

      I thought someone would say that. But disconnecting sex from reproduction is very, very recent. The pill, which allowed women to control their fertility was only available from 1960 onward. Now the seriousness that people, particularly women, attach to sex has been tuned by evolution for thousands of years. So it's not too surprising that they are still cautious. Once we've had thousands of years of sex being zero consequence I guess we'll be like Bonobos. In fact to the extent that the seriousness attached to sex is determined culturally, I guess we'd have already got there but for Aids.

      But even in an environment where sex is safe - no possibility of Aids or unwanted pregnancies - it still seems like an evolutionarily correct approach would be to have sex with someone you would be happy having kids with. Which because human children mature so slowly means someone you'd want to spend the next 20 years being faithful to. Otherwise you might waste your fertile period having safe sex with people you don't want to have kids with and miss breeding.

      Incidentally I think the fact that women have a hard limit on their reproductive life is another reason for them being pickier than men about who they have sex with. Mind you, if you want to see your kids graduate from that Ivy League university, men have a limited reproductive life too. The limit is a bit softer but it is still there if you accept the K selection argument

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    40. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Plants are sexual too"

      Yea, I've been noticing my petunias giving me the eye lately. Must be that time of year...

      --
      I hate printers.
    41. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by James+McP · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I pointed out there was a real and rational reason why people tend to do things in private that has nothing to do with cultural/legal mores (shame & fear of repercussions) or personal attitudes (private nature). I didn't actually comment on the validity of the case or the likelihood of success.

      I'm on the side of personal choice, albeit one tempered by the rights of others. E.g. "your right to throw a punch ends before my face starts." This admittedly tends to put more limits on extroverted activities in very public places but can be accomodated by signage to indicate expectations, e.g. differentiating between a "normal" public beach and a nude public beach.

      In this case, that wouldn't apply unless these pornographers were projecting their wares onto the sides of buildings or on clouds.

        By the same token, I'm all for "Joe Camel's Eatatorium & Tobacco Smokeatorium" where smoking is allowed in the entire restaurant because it's a private establishment. Public offices (meaning those actually operated by city/state/federal govt) would continue to have designated smoking-only sections since people *must* visit those offices rather than it being a choice of where to have dinner.

      --
      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.
    42. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ask a lot of young women of today and they'll tell you much the same (though probably a little less extreme). Ehm, I know single women up to their thirties thinking like this, much like the men. Welcome to the 2000's. :-) WHICH COUNTRY DO YOU LIVE IN?
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    43. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by digitrev · · Score: 4, Funny

      Personally, I'd be more worried that your plants have eyes.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
    44. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by lgw · · Score: 2, Informative

      The idea that people in a house would sleep in different rooms is a reasonably new one (maybe 500 years). Something to do with chimneys.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    45. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by bickerdyke · · Score: 2, Funny

      so... GPs moral decline is simply a return to the good-old-values from 500 years ago :-)

      --
      bickerdyke
    46. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by The+Iso · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fish reproduce sexually, but they do not have sexual intercourse as we know it. Nearly all known fishes are oviparous. The female releases her eggs in to the surrounding water, and there they are fertilised by the male. For more information, see "The Deep South." Futurama. Writ. J. Stewart Burns. Fox. 16 Apr. 2000.

      --
      "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." - Bob Dylan
    47. Re:Petard, meet hoist. by mcelrath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Meant by society. There are societal norms present in every culture. Its not so much 'meant' as it is 'what is expected or regular.'

      Who cares about "societal norms" for private acts? By definition, "society" doesn't know about them.

      This is simply some people imposing their will on others.

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
  2. The reason for this is obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    As American Pie demonstrated, it just doesn't work as well as they claim.

  3. American pie by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 3, Funny

    are interested in 'orgy' than "apple pie'." And even if they were interested in apple pie, this could still be spun the right way.
    1. Re:American pie by GroeFaZ · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe the submitter meant to write "'orgy' then 'apple pie'"?

      --
      The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
  4. Yeah by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, but did he try "warm apple pie". I bet he'd get very different results! :-D

    1. Re:Yeah by houghi · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have tried it. Don't try it with hot apple pie. Indeed completely different result.
      Oh, you were talking about trying it on Google. Sorry, no experience there.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  5. Is that only in Pensacola? by MMC+Monster · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:Is that only in Pensacola? by lilomar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Here you go.

      Black = orgy more interesting.
      Red = apple pie more interesting.
      White = water.

      --
      The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
  6. Weird spike by rhombic · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:Weird spike by Paranatural · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's a big swinger's convention in New Orleans in November. Also the fall tends to be the time of year when such parties and whatnot get underway.

      Hey, you asked. And now you know more about me than you ever wanted to.

    2. Re:Weird spike by bickerdyke · · Score: 4, Funny

      we need "-1 informative"......

      --
      bickerdyke
  7. "What is more American than apple pie?" by MRe_nl · · Score: 5, Informative

    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"
    1. Re:"What is more American than apple pie?" by Iamthecheese · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thats aggregate data son, and used correctly, its useless as a tool to violate privacy.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    2. Re:"What is more American than apple pie?" by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a reason for this: the letters "orgy" don't have the same meaning in all languages.

  8. Re:Hyprocrisy in the South--film at eleven! by daspriest · · Score: 2, Informative

    Taking Pensacola's data as a baseline will offer skewed results. Pensacola has a large Navy population, so would have higher porn related searches then the rest of the communities in the area from the Navy personnel stationed there alone.

  9. The Great Orgy Spike of 2006 : Correlation by djdavetrouble · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  10. Pick your words carefully by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Informative

    Mr. Walters might like to know that Walters is more popular than apple pie but less popular than orgy.

  11. Re:Hyprocrisy in the South--film at eleven! by caffeinemessiah · · Score: 5, Funny

    Taking Pensacola's data as a baseline will offer skewed results. Pensacola has a large Navy population, so would have higher porn related searches then the rest of the communities in the area from the Navy personnel stationed there alone.

    As a navy semen, I reject your pornosition that sex is always on our minds.

    --
    An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
  12. FTA by stainlesssteelpat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Mr. Walters is defending Clinton Raymond McCowen, who is facing charges that he created and distributed obscene material through a Web site based in Florida. The charges include racketeering and prostitution, but Mr. Walters said the prosecution's case fundamentally relies on proving that the material on the site is obscene.

    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
    1. Re:FTA by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mr. Walters is defending Clinton Raymond McCowen, who is facing charges that he created and distributed obscene material through a Web site based in Florida. The charges include racketeering and prostitution, but Mr. Walters said the prosecution's case fundamentally relies on proving that the material on the site is obscene.

      How exactly is google trends going to clear him of racketeering and prostitution? Just curious.

      You got me curious too, the article linked was light on details, so I googled the guys' name:

      See, all this activity is stemming from things that occurred in the past. We had moved production from Pensacola almost three years ago. We moved to Tampa for a little while and then to Vancouver.

      You were shooting everything in Vancouver?

      One hundred percent. Weâ(TM)ve been up there almost two years. Thatâ(TM)s why they chose racketeering. They couldnâ(TM)t charge us with prostitution, because it has a one-year statute of limitations. They could have charged us with obscenity, but I think as a whole, we have an extremely good chance of beating the obscenity charge. What they do is use the catchall: Any two predicates combined can equal racketeering, so thatâ(TM)s what they charged us with. That looks better on paper.

      P.S. the new comment system has character encoding issues... I'll go tell our overlords about that.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  13. Re:Hyprocrisy in the South--film at eleven! by D+Ninja · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hypocrisy isn't just the south - it's people. I have yet to meet a person that did not have some sort of hypocrisy going on in their own life - myself included. This is the reason for the entire Biblical passage, "Take the log out of your own eye before you remove the speck from your neighbors." If people spent time fixing themselves and not worrying about other people's problems, the world would be a much more beautiful place.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again - people are extremely motivated by their own self-interest and will do whatever it takes to protect that self-interest, even if it means lying to themselves about their actual flaws. Only when people can admit their flaws are they ever going to have a chance of actually fixing things in their lives.

  14. What the frilly heck is a "community standard?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

  15. Were did the peak come from? by Lars+T. · · Score: 3, Funny

    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

    1. Re:Were did the peak come from? by sjoerd_visscher · · Score: 2, Informative
  16. Re:Hyprocrisy in the South--film at eleven! by stewbacca · · Score: 4, Insightful

    • 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.
    Or they are there to feel better about themselves after an online porn all-nighter.
  17. all is fair in love and war by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:all is fair in love and war by spun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think you have a strange view of human nature. I feel pleasure at seeing someone more successful than I, as long as that success seems warranted. That urge towards justice and fairness you mention works both ways if you let it.

      You should also read up on anthropology, because you have some strange ideas about what humans are like in their 'natural' state. Read The Continuum Concept for another view.

      There seem to be only two cultures in the world, the culture of feast and sharing, and the culture of famine and war. You are drawing your conclusions based on only the currently dominant culture. For most of human history, though, it was not.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:all is fair in love and war by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I feel pleasure at seeing someone more successful than I, as long as that success seems warranted.

      And herein lies the rub. What "seems warranted" varies wildly depending on what measuring stick you use. For example, is it possible for a teenage vacuum-head "pop star" to warrant worth 10000 greater then the best neurosurgeon or the discoverer of some properties of proteins which result in making the cure for cancer possible?

      What measurement do you use to make multi-billion economic empires - and with them the control of lives of hundreds of thousands of employees - be granted to a spoiled brat who never worked a day in her whole life?

      I could go on.

      As I got older, I realized, from first hand experience, that in our "society" there is in essence next to no wide-spread correlation between "success" and it being "warranted", no matter what measuring stick you use. Randomness, hereditary aristocracy and a very, very, very strong preference for Machiavellian sociopathic jerks adept at con-artistry seem be the main "features" of the landscape of distribution of "success" around us today.

  18. Re:more interested in orgy than apple pie? by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Funny

    The comparison is skewed.

    I knew that when I saw the word "lawyer" ;-)
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  19. Who farted? by sm62704 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A little almost on topic background to the cliche "Hoist with his own petard" before getting entirely ON topic:

    A petard was a small medieval bomb used to blow up gates and walls when breaching fortifications. In a typical implementation, it was commonly either a conical or rectangular metal object containing 5 or 6 pounds of gun powder, activated with a slow match used as a fuse. It was often placed either inside tunnels under walls, or directly upon gates. When placed inside a tunnel under a wall and exploded, large amounts of air would often be released from the tunnel, as the tunnel collapsed. By securing the device firmly to the gate, the shape of the device allows the concussive pressure of the blast to be applied entirely towards the destruction of the gate. Depending on design, a petard could be secured by propping it against the gate using beams as illustrated, or nailing it in place by way of a wooden board fixed to the end of the petard in advance.

    The word remains in modern usage in the phrase to be hoist by one's own petard, which means "to be harmed by one's own plan to harm someone else" or "to fall in one's own trap", literally implying that one could be lifted up (hoisted, or blown upward) by one's own bomb. Shakespeare used the now proverbial phrase in Hamlet.

    In medieval and Renaissance siege warfare, a common tactic was to dig a shallow trench close to the enemy gate, and then erect a small hoisting engine that would lift the lit petard out of the trench, swing it up, out, and over to the gate, where it would detonate and hopefully breach the gate. It was not impossible, however, that this procedure would go awry, and the engineer lighting the bomb could be snagged in the ropes and lifted out with the petard and consequently blown up. Alternately, and perhaps a more likely scenario, if the petard were to detonate prematurely due to a faulty or short slow match, the engineer would be lifted or 'hoist' by the explosion.

    Thus to be 'hoist with his own petar' is to be caught up and destroyed by his own plot. Hamlet's actual meaning is "cause the bomb maker to be blown up with his own bomb", metaphorically turning the tables on Claudius, whose messengers are killed instead of Hamlet. Also note here, Shakespeare's probable off-color pun "hoisted with his own petar" (i.e., fart) as reason for the spelling "petar" rather than "petard".

    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
  20. Utah by chill · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Utah by KokorHekkus · · Score: 2, Informative

      You remember correctly, here is the year 2000 New York Times article covering the case: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/23/technology/23PORN.html?ex=1214452800&en=6a4a8bd6fbec1199&ei=5070

      According to the article it only took the jury a few minutes to find him not guilty.

  21. Same old issue again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."

    1. Re:Same old issue again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here the acid test is (or at least should be) "is it directly harmful to a human."

      I would argue the acid test should be more like, "is it directly harmful to a non-consenting human."

    2. Re:Same old issue again by Firethorn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I DID join the military, and I HAVE said similar statements.

      'I disagree with everything you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'. Personally, I'd rather kill the enemy to protect our rights; dying doesn't actually tend to do much.

      Thus, I'll actually defend Phelps - but I think he's a complete a**wipe for what he's done, including before he decided to start protesting military funerals. Previously he'd protest at gay funerals; I guess it didn't get him enough media coverage.

      By the same token, I'll defend the right of the bikers to protest phelp's protest. ;)

      On the other hand - I believe in the 'high road'. This does not mean that there can't be dissent. It merely means people should remain polite in their dissent. This is just common sense - being a screaming tard isn't going to gain you converts. A polite, reasoned discussion can.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  22. Obscene is defined by religion by Khashishi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.