A trial in Florida this week will lob the following question up on the table: Should our morals be judged by what we do on the internet, or by what we publicly preach?
The defendant in this case is accused of selling sexually explicit material on a website, and the defense team will be using Google Trends to argue that the community’s standard of decency is actually much lower than the prosecution is claiming.
Materials in cases such as this need to be found “patently offensive” by contemporary community standards. When we were D.J.’s at our college radio station, for instance, we were told that the community would allow the use of the word “shit” on air, but pretty much drew the line at that. Any naughtiness beyond that point, and we’d have some run-ins with the law. Same deal here.
If prosecution can prove that those Floridians are truly offended by this website’s naked people and whatever acts these naked people are participating in, then they will have won their case. If, on the other hand, the defense can prove, with Google’s help, that this community is really just a bunch of dirty birds with a penchant for searching the web for full-bondage and well-hidden piercings, then they may actually get their client off scot-free.
It’s really quite a case. It assumes that our morality is demonstrated by our online selves. Is that true, though? How many times have you searched for something that you would never practice in real life? If we wouldn’t engage in such an activity, but still have the curiosity to look into it, does that say something about our beliefs and standards?
Looks like the Florida courts will be deciding just that.
via ars technica