Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google Trends vs. Community Standards On Obscenity

Posted by timothy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 09:47 AM
from the gotta-worry-about-the-apple-pie-searchers dept.
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'."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • That is awesome.

    • by FredFredrickson (1177871) * on Tuesday June 24 2008, @09:53AM (#23916079) Homepage Journal
      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 [google.com]. (Additionally, he shouldn't have public news like this- people will skew the trends when they find out about it.
      • 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"

      • by Tom (822) on Tuesday June 24 2008, @10:31AM (#23916603) Homepage Journal

        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.

        • by mo^ (150717) on Tuesday June 24 2008, @10:25AM (#23916517)

          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?

        • by PakProtector (115173) <{cevkiv} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday June 24 2008, @10:27AM (#23916531) Journal

          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.

          • by James McP (3700) on Tuesday June 24 2008, @10:44AM (#23916833)

            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).

        • by jefu (53450) on Tuesday June 24 2008, @10:27AM (#23916535) Homepage Journal

          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.

          • by Robert1 (513674) on Tuesday June 24 2008, @10:45AM (#23916853) Homepage

            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.

        • by Nursie (632944) on Tuesday June 24 2008, @10:27AM (#23916541) Homepage

          "...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.

        • by bickerdyke (670000) on Tuesday June 24 2008, @10:29AM (#23916573)

          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.
        • by Mr. Slippery (47854) <tms @ i n f a m ous.net> on Tuesday June 24 2008, @10:41AM (#23916779) Homepage

          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 [freespiritgathering.org] and this [rosencomet.com] and this [playadelfuego.org]) and no one has been harmed.

        • by Hojima (1228978) on Tuesday June 24 2008, @10:42AM (#23916799)

          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.

    • by Potor (658520) <farker1@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Tuesday June 24 2008, @09:56AM (#23916131) Journal
      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.

  • Weird spike (Score:5, Funny)

    by rhombic (140326) on Tuesday June 24 2008, @09:56AM (#23916127)

    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.

    • Re:Weird spike (Score:5, Informative)

      by Paranatural (661514) on Tuesday June 24 2008, @10:04AM (#23916227)

      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.

  • by MRe_nl (306212) on Tuesday June 24 2008, @09:58AM (#23916153)

    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.

  • by djdavetrouble (442175) on Tuesday June 24 2008, @09:59AM (#23916169) Homepage

    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 [wikipedia.org].

    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

  • Utah (Score:5, Informative)

    by chill (34294) on Tuesday June 24 2008, @10:38AM (#23916719) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • by D Ninja (825055) on Tuesday June 24 2008, @10:13AM (#23916345)

      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.

    • by stewbacca (1033764) on Tuesday June 24 2008, @10:26AM (#23916523)

      • 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.
    • Re:Yeah (Score:5, Funny)

      by houghi (78078) on Tuesday June 24 2008, @10:11AM (#23916307) Homepage

      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.

    • Re:FTA (Score:5, Informative)

      by Scrameustache (459504) on Tuesday June 24 2008, @10:40AM (#23916745) Homepage Journal

      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. [wordpress.com]

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