June 24, 2008--Googling Orgies
By nature I’m not that suspicious. But there’s a trial about to begin in Pensacola, on the Redneck Riviera, that has me worried. It’s the State of Florida versus an alleged Internet pornographer.
As in these kinds of cases, the prosecutor has to prove that what the defendant is selling violates community obscenity standards, while the defense needs to demonstrate that what his client is peddling is not any different than what is commonly available and purchased in that seemingly conservative area.
In the old days, defense attorneys showed juries what was available for sale at local magazine shops and in nearby sex shops. If it was easy to get one’s sweaty hands on copies of Penthouse and Hustler or kinky videos, what then was the big deal if Defendant-X or Client-9 had a thing for oral sex?
More recently lawyers have been bringing computers into the courtroom to show how easy it is to access porn via the Web. Claiming that this allows folks with certain inclinations to enjoy their guilty pleasures in the privacy of their finished basements. This legal tactic one would think should be a winner since it does not ask a jury to look at publicly displayed magazines and DVDs. How are community standards violated when all the transactions occur outside of public view?
Well, since this strategy of bringing Internet sex into the courtroom has not been working, down in Pensacola the defense attorney is going to employ a new and very different tactic:
He is asking Google to release the data it has about the Internet browsing habits of Pensacola residents. How many, for example, have used Google to search the Web for “orgies”? In comparison, they want to know, with how often people there hit on “watermelon” and “apple pie”? Though I’m not clear about why they see watermelons and orgies to be meaningfully comparable—these do not seem equivalent to the more familiar “apples” and “oranges.” (See New York Times article linked below.)
Google is considering this request, surprisingly not rejecting it out of hand. Though I shouldn’t be entirely surprised--haven’t they also been quite accommodating to the Chinese government, among others, about what people there should be allowed to surf for using their vaunted search engine? But Google and juries looking over the electronic shoulders of sex shoppers in Constitutionally-protected Americans feels considerably more intrusive.
Nonetheless, the Pensacola defense strategy is brilliant. It’s going to be very hard for any jury there to find against the defendant when the Google data inevitably reveals that many, many of their friends and neighbors are spending untold hours addicted to raunchy Websites.
They may be going to church Sunday mornings to hear their preachers rail against smut and same-sex marriages, but then after lunch, while they are purportedly watching ESPN, they’re about as likely to be sneaking a peek at pornstar cheerleaders on the Internet.
As in these kinds of cases, the prosecutor has to prove that what the defendant is selling violates community obscenity standards, while the defense needs to demonstrate that what his client is peddling is not any different than what is commonly available and purchased in that seemingly conservative area.
In the old days, defense attorneys showed juries what was available for sale at local magazine shops and in nearby sex shops. If it was easy to get one’s sweaty hands on copies of Penthouse and Hustler or kinky videos, what then was the big deal if Defendant-X or Client-9 had a thing for oral sex?
More recently lawyers have been bringing computers into the courtroom to show how easy it is to access porn via the Web. Claiming that this allows folks with certain inclinations to enjoy their guilty pleasures in the privacy of their finished basements. This legal tactic one would think should be a winner since it does not ask a jury to look at publicly displayed magazines and DVDs. How are community standards violated when all the transactions occur outside of public view?
Well, since this strategy of bringing Internet sex into the courtroom has not been working, down in Pensacola the defense attorney is going to employ a new and very different tactic:
He is asking Google to release the data it has about the Internet browsing habits of Pensacola residents. How many, for example, have used Google to search the Web for “orgies”? In comparison, they want to know, with how often people there hit on “watermelon” and “apple pie”? Though I’m not clear about why they see watermelons and orgies to be meaningfully comparable—these do not seem equivalent to the more familiar “apples” and “oranges.” (See New York Times article linked below.)
Google is considering this request, surprisingly not rejecting it out of hand. Though I shouldn’t be entirely surprised--haven’t they also been quite accommodating to the Chinese government, among others, about what people there should be allowed to surf for using their vaunted search engine? But Google and juries looking over the electronic shoulders of sex shoppers in Constitutionally-protected Americans feels considerably more intrusive.
Nonetheless, the Pensacola defense strategy is brilliant. It’s going to be very hard for any jury there to find against the defendant when the Google data inevitably reveals that many, many of their friends and neighbors are spending untold hours addicted to raunchy Websites.
They may be going to church Sunday mornings to hear their preachers rail against smut and same-sex marriages, but then after lunch, while they are purportedly watching ESPN, they’re about as likely to be sneaking a peek at pornstar cheerleaders on the Internet.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
10:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home