In This Article
Subscribe to National Updates
Lawyer Lawrence Walters
Lawyer Seeks to Use Google Search Data in Florida Obscenity Case
by
Rachel Balik
A defense lawyer seeks to use local residents’ search histories as proof that his client’s Web site doesn’t violate community standards.
30-Second Summary
A defense lawyer plans to use publicly accessible Google search data to defend his client, who operates an adult Web site based in Florida and has been charged with obscenity. Seasoned first amendment lawyer Lawrence Walters is also subpoenaing Google for localized statistics, such as “the number of searches for certain sexual topics done by local residents” of Pensacola.
Walters hopes that the Google data will demonstrate that the community is searching for and viewing content comparable to that offered on his client’s Web site, and therefore the site does not violate “community standards.” Previous efforts to make this argument have relied on ambiguous reports of sales of pornographic magazines and videos. “The prospect of having measurement of Internet traffic brings a more objective component than we’ve ever seen before,” lawyer Jeffrey Douglas said.
But not everyone is convinced that community standards are the best way to define obscenity. The Talk Left blog argues, “If two people in two different communities are watching the same movie or viewing the same website in the privacy of their own homes, why should one be less entitled to First Amendment protection than the other?”
It is rare for courts to consider a case regarding adult pornography; the vast majority of the cases over the past 10 years concern child pornography.
Walters hopes that the Google data will demonstrate that the community is searching for and viewing content comparable to that offered on his client’s Web site, and therefore the site does not violate “community standards.” Previous efforts to make this argument have relied on ambiguous reports of sales of pornographic magazines and videos. “The prospect of having measurement of Internet traffic brings a more objective component than we’ve ever seen before,” lawyer Jeffrey Douglas said.
But not everyone is convinced that community standards are the best way to define obscenity. The Talk Left blog argues, “If two people in two different communities are watching the same movie or viewing the same website in the privacy of their own homes, why should one be less entitled to First Amendment protection than the other?”
It is rare for courts to consider a case regarding adult pornography; the vast majority of the cases over the past 10 years concern child pornography.
Headline Link: ‘What’s Obscene? Google Could Have an Answer’
The defense for a man charged in a Florida state court with obscenity for operating a Florida-based adult Web site will attempt to use publicly available Google search statistics to prove that the material does not “violate community standards.” Attorney Lawrence Walters says that the Google results will “show how people really think and feel and act in their own homes, which, parenthetically, is where this material was intended to be viewed.” Lawyers have tried to provide similar evidence in the past by demonstrating the wide availability of pornographic print and video material; however, “[t]he prospect of having measurement of Internet traffic brings a more objective component than we’ve ever seen before,” Jeffrey Douglas, chairman emeritus of the First Amendment Lawyers Association, said. Walters has also subpoenaed Google for more specific search results from the community, including “the number of searches for certain sexual topics done by local residents.”
Source: The New York Times (free registration may be required)
Opinion and Analysis: Who Cares About Community Standards?
A columnist for the St. Petersberg Times reflected on another pornography trial recently conducted in a federal court in Tampa Bay. She says it’s no surprise that the Florida jury found Californian pornographer Peter Little guilty. Although Tampa Bay might be littered with strip clubs, Little’s material was extraordinarily graphic, and aimed at a “niche market.” However, she argues, determining what types of pornography meet “community standards” is probably “not the most important thing our federal government could be doing on our dime.”
Source: Tampabay.com
The Talk Left blog asks, “If two people in two different communities are watching the same movie or viewing the same website in the privacy of their own homes, why should one be less entitled to First Amendment protection than the other?” It adds that in the Internet age, the idea of local community standards is essentially “meaningless.” Even if Google does prove that people in Pensacola like pornography, criteria for determining pornography should be universal.
Source: Talk Left
Key Player: Defense Attorney Lawrence Walters
Lawyer Lawrence Walters has a long history of defending pornographers. He has been winning First Amendment cases since the 1990s and represents a substantial number of pornographers. Walters says his interest in First Amendment cases came about when a state attorney began arresting video store owners who carried pornographic tapes. The state attorney was “sending letters to video store owners and telling them what videos to take off their shelves, including one of my personal favorites, Pink Floyd’s ‘The Wall.’ I thought to myself, I didn’t go to law school to see this kind of stuff happen," Walters said.
Source: The Ledger (Lakeland, Florida)
Related Topics: Online child pornography
In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that virtual child pornography was legal, striking down a previous ban included in the Child Pornography Prevention Act. Virtual child pornography uses digitally created images of children and actors who are of legal age portraying children. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations were proponents of the ban, arguing that it “helps to stamp out the market for child pornography involving real children.” However, the Supreme Court concluded that the law violated the First Amendment and might be detrimental to the creativity of filmmakers.
Source: Freedom Forum
However, the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that a person soliciting child porn, including virtual child porn, was guilty of a crime, as long as that person believed that it was pornography involving real children or attempted to persuade a recipient that it was. The Court believes that the new language prevents violation of the First Amendment.
Source: International Herald Tribune
In 2007, a Philadelphia federal judge struck down a law that “made it a crime for Web sites to allow children to gain access to material deemed ‘harmful.’” The law had been aimed at pornographic Web sites. Chris Hansen, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union said, “If this law had gone into effect, it would have resulted into dumbing down of the Internet.” The judge regretted the ramifications for children, but deemed that the right of free speech was more important.
Source: The New York Times (free registration may be required)
Reference Links: 1973 Supreme Court ruling on obscenity
In 1973, the Supreme Court, ruling on the case Miller v. California, established the Miller Standard for Obscenity, requiring the judge in any obscenity case to determine if “the average person, applying contemporary community standards,” would “find that a given movie, book, or other work appeals to sexual desires? Second, does the movie, book, or other work use clearly offensive means to show or describe sexual conduct in a way specifically prohibited by state law? And third, does the movie, book, or other work, ‘taken as a whole, [lack] literary, artistic, political, or scientific value’?”
Source: Law Library—American Law and Legal Information
Read the complete text of the case Miller v. California on Justia.com.
Source: Justia.com
Most Recent Beyond The Headlines
© 2020 Dulcinea Media, Inc.
