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'."

FTA

[stainlesssteelpat]

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.

Re:Petard, meet hoist.

[Mortice]

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.

Who farted?

[sm62704]

A little almost on topic background to the cliche "Hoist with his own petard" [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:Petard, meet hoist.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all about laws of cooperation vs. laws of morality, to use some terms a friend of mine coined (or at least introduced me to).

Certain laws (or rules in general) are required for society to function: for example, the rule that you have to stop at a red traffic light, the rule that says you can't just deprive someone else of their property (or life, limb, liberty or whatever) against their will, and so on. These are laws of cooperation.

Laws that are enacted to make a person's or group's moral views obligatory are laws of morality; these, in essence, are bad, because they not only restrict others' freedom (something that all laws do) but because they do so NEEDLESSLY (unlike with laws of cooperation, where the restriction is arguably necessary for society to function).

Bans on pornography, sexual acts between consenting partners etc. are generally laws of morality and therefore wrong.

To solve your dilemma regarding public obscenities and indecencies, ask yourself whether these bans are necessary for society to work.

Re:Petard, meet hoist.

[Hojima]

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.

Re:all is fair in love and war

[spun]

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 [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:Petard, meet hoist.

[James McP]

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).

Re:"What is more American than apple pie?"

[Lars T.]

Interesting, when you switch to all regions: the gap between orgy and apple pie widens (so Americans are more prude it seems). But Tampa, FL, USA is still the #1 city searching for Orgy, the Czechs beat the Greece, and Polish is the second most used language to search for Orgy.

Re:Petard, meet hoist.

[Evanisincontrol]

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?

Re:Petard, meet hoist.

[TractorBarry]

> 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."

Re:Petard, meet hoist.

[umghhh]

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'.

Re:Petard, meet hoist.

[Jugalator]

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. :-)

Re:Same old issue again

[Firethorn]

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.