There has been quite a bit of buzz among various sources on the internet this week regarding what may be a novel use of Google-collected search data. Next week there is an obscenity trial going forward in Florida in which the defense proposes to use the frequency of certain search terms used in a community. They are arguing that these searches paint a definitively different picture about what is considered ‘obscene’ by community standards.

The defense attorney in the case, Lawrence Walters, will use Google Trends to show that people are much more likely to search for terms such as ‘orgy’ than they are for terms such as ‘apple pie’. The idea is that he intends to expose the hypocrisy that is present in most, if not all obscenity cases. I think that we can all agree that every jury in these cases have people that will outright condemn something in public, only to engage in it in private. As we’ve seen time and time again. I’m looking at you Larry Craig, David Vitter and Ted Haggard.

The prosecution disagrees, which I believe is what prosecutors are employed to do. According to the prosecutor , he thinks “How many times you do something doesn’t necessarily speak to standards and values.” Funny… I thought that was exactly what a standard is.

Now I am the first to concede that looking up something online means that you have an interest in it, but does not mean you have any intention whatsoever of acting on it. Serial killer sites are quite popular, but that doesn’t mean that the community standards have morphed to say “Well, serial killing isn’t so bad. Lots of folks are interested in it.” And just because you are interested enough to research something, doesn’t mean you condone it.

One of the things that I most take issue with is this idea that you shouldn’t look up something or research something because you don’t approve of it. We are all curious by nature. And the fact that I look up ‘how to make a bomb’ has zero bearing on whether I’ll ever make one or not. So just because someone looked up ‘orgy’ doesn’t mean that they broke out the phone and started trying to put one together.

Now one point that the defense lawyer makes, that I think is very valid here, is that the search terms take a on a specific relevance here. The source of all this obscenity in question is a website. So the fact that the terms are culled from the internet becomes even more relevant, because that is where the obscene content in question would be consumed.

And of course we all know that most people are much more relaxed in their ‘moral-compass’ in private than they are in public. That’s the reason why sex-related info has thrived on the internet. So, it makes sense that because people are performing these searches in their home, in private, these stats are a better yardstick for peoples private behavior, where the material would be viewed, than it is to gauge it against public behavior.

So, I tip my hat to the defense attorney here for a novel approach to the case. I’m quite curious to see how this all plays out in court.

Click here for the New York Times Article.

Filed under: Current Events