Google Trends vs. Community Standards On Obscenity 332
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'."
Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is awesome.
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (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? (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.
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:4, Funny)
all is fair in love and war (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"
Re:all is fair in love and war (Score:4, 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 [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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Human nature has many facets (Score:2)
Human nature has two natural modes that are resource dependent. In times of plentiful resources, sharing and cooperation make more sense. There are always local scarcities and disasters, so when a society has more than enough in general, it makes the most sense to share and cooperate, to build support networks.
In times of famine, it makes sense to look after yourself and your own, and not to share with others. What is so hard to understand about that?
Of course things like jealousy and envy are natural, but
so you want to represent to me (Score:2)
that at the time of the agricultural revolution, when food forever more became reliable rather than a mad scramble, suddenly we all got locked into famine thinking
i'm sorry, but this is stupid
but you don't have to listen to me. history is replete with utopianists. go close your eyes about human nature, make believe everything will be magically bountiful with the right "insights" (ie, delusions) about humanity... go found your utopia... and it always fails
because human nature is fixed in all the awful ways y
caligula is here and now (Score:2)
we are rich in the west today. as such, we have more sex than our poorer ancestors, and just as much sex as the roman emperors. western prudishness is very much been defeate by the relative richness of our lives compared to the past or other cultures, or did you mix the 1960s?
in the past, the rich also had rich sex lives. that rich people can escape social mores is not an amazing concept. nor is it true that there was some magical past when all love was free. the average roman was most definitely not having
Re: (Score:3, 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 you
Re: (Score:2)
I'm merely commenting on the state of society, their thought process, and my struggle with my own though process given to me by society.
Re: (Score:3, 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 tha
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Seeing as most Americans descend from Europeans, there is a prehistoric problem with it, namely idiot cro-magnons that did so died of exposure during the winter. So along with a genetic ability to handle our alcohol, fight livestock derived diseases, and digest animal milk, we also inherited an understanding that running around naked isn't a good plan. Don't find many eskimos procreating in the great out doors, do you?
Re: (Score:3, 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
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, 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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, 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 nudi
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you censure fish who conduct the act of procreation on a mass scale in front of other fish?
Re: (Score:2)
To follow your example...the fish generally don't pretend to procreate for pleasure and no one objects when they DO procreate. So maybe the problem is people should only have sex in public if they intend to sucessfully procreate.
How about that? It's just nature we're talking about now. Is that obscene? :)
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's evidence suggesting that fish do have sex for reasons other than procreation. Whether this be pleasure (fish can feel pain [bbc.co.uk]--I submit that if a creature can feel pain they can feel pleasure), or for other social reasons [stanford.edu] (see the paragraph about bonobos using sex to relieve tension), or to establish dominance [reed.edu] (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.
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:4, Funny)
It is amazing how easily "procreation" and "procrastination" can be confused when you don't have your morning coffee.
In either case, I agree!
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (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...
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (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).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I include that in the 'repercussions of my actions' category.
Same old issue again (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."
Re:Same old issue again (Score:5, Insightful)
I would argue the acid test should be more like, "is it directly harmful to a non-consenting human."
Re: (Score:3, 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
Re: (Score:2)
And therefore we should lock up all the people whose brains don't start yelling that when they're in front of a camera? Logic not holding up here...
Re: (Score:3, 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 activitie
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you support the human whales to screw in times square anyway? It's certainly not my thing but I don't see the actual harm being done other than potential friction burns for those involved.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, 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?
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Fat wrinkled naked old hippies!
Oh God my EYES!!!
Seriously, the mental image alone is harm enough. Put your cloths back on, no one should be subjected to seeing your wrinkly old hippy arse.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3, 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 o
Re: (Score:3, 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 includi
Re: (Score:2)
have you ever read anything about the romans? private and special act what a load of bollocks.
Re: (Score:2)
"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."
so in that view.. before they ate the apple... god is a perv?
Re: (Score:3, 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
Re: (Score:2)
Judeo-Christian value system? Is that you Bill O'Reilly?
If I keep hearing about these Judeo-Christian values I am force to abide by despite being an atheist, I am going to start smacking the crap out of some Judeo-Christians.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds good, but when you say "meant," my bullshit/dogma detector goes off. Meant by who? Is this codified somewhere, perhaps a stone tablet or holy book?
Choose it, because you prefer it. That's the only good reason. Other reasons just allow you to be manipulated by someone, and words like "meant" are that someone's tools.
Re: (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 wi
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (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'.
Re: (Score:2)
There are those of us who seek to rule our own emotional responses to things so that we may act reasonably, and then there are those who are ruled by their own emotional responses to things so much that they cannot act reasonably.
It's all about deciding whether you want to have free will or not.
Re: (Score:2)
1. I'm afraid nothing will remain sacred. If increasingly shocking things become normal, I will become desensitized. Am I basing my sense of morality on my ability to become shocked or disturbed? Possibly...
2. The party van will get me. I'm not trying to view CP, but it pops up (if you're talking about the same certain site I am, and I think you are). I quickly report those imag
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lawyers can select any word combination that is helpful to them. Nothing here more than a new way to load an argument.
Who farted? (Score:4, Interesting)
A little almost on topic background to the cliche "Hoist with his own petard" [wikipedia.org] before getting entirely ON topic:
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.
i'm sorry, i find all of that history implausible (Score:2)
to be more precise, i find your historical anecdotes to be petarded
Re: (Score:2)
They're not my historical anecdotes, they're wikipedia's. You can change it if you want (but they'll change it right back).
Since you obviously have a problem with wikipedia's accuracy, I looked it up on uncyclopedia. Unfortionately, according to the uncyclopedia, petards don't exist. But Picard [uncyclopedia.org] does. According to uncyclopedia, what Shakespeare said was "He was hoist by his own Picard".
The reason for this is obvious (Score:4, Funny)
As American Pie demonstrated, it just doesn't work as well as they claim.
American pie (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, but did he try "warm apple pie". I bet he'd get very different results! :-D
Re: (Score:2)
Well, its really more like cherry pie anyway... one would hope, anyway.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
more interested in orgy than apple pie? (Score:2)
I know I am. And apple pie sure is tasty!
On the other hand, you already know where to get apple pie, but you have to use the internet to get porn, or post in the swingers classifieds. The comparison is skewed.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The comparison is skewed.
Is that only in Pensacola? (Score:3, Funny)
Can anyone put up a picture of the U.S. (and world) that highlights areas that find apple pies more interesting that orgies?
Re: (Score:2)
Can anyone put up a picture of the U.S. (and world) that highlights areas that find apple pies more interesting that orgies?
Re:Is that only in Pensacola? (Score:5, Funny)
Here you go. [wisc.edu]
Black = orgy more interesting.
Red = apple pie more interesting.
White = water.
How the hell are obscenity laws still there? (Score:2)
You'd think they'd've been struck down a long time ago. But I guess that'd give the Supreme Court too much common sense credit....
Weird spike (Score:5, 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.
Re:Weird spike (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.
Re:Weird spike (Score:4, Funny)
"What is more American than apple pie?" (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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Great Orgy Spike of 2006 : Correlation (Score:5, 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 [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
Pick your words carefully (Score:3, Informative)
FTA (Score:4, Interesting)
How exactly is google trends going to clear him of racketeering and prostitution? Just curious.
Re:FTA (Score:5, Informative)
How exactly is google trends going to clear him of racketeering and prostitution? Just curious.
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.
What the frilly heck is a "community standard?" (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!
Were did the peak come from? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Mark Foley?
Utah (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
According to the article it only took the jury a few minutes to find him not guilty.
Obscene is defined by religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re:Hyprocrisy in the South--film at eleven! (Score:5, Funny)
As a navy semen, I reject your pornosition that sex is always on our minds.
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously spent so long in the Navy that HUGE SEXUAL ORGANS you don't even notice sexual terms embedded in ORGY text. ;)
Re:Hyprocrisy in the South--film at eleven! (Score:5, 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.
Re:Hyprocrisy in the South--film at eleven! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's true of "small town hicks", but it's also true of New Yorkers, Californians, and everybody else.