You know who would've benefited from seeing this pair of creative ads for Porn Blocker software? Clinton Raymond McCowen, who's on trial in Florida for distributing porn that qualifies, prosecutors are arguing, as "obscene," that nasty over-the-line definition that means whatever the hell you're doing is not protected by the First Amendment.

(This is not to be confused with a similar obscenity trial underway in Los Angeles, where pornographer Ira Isaacs is defending his human-on-animal flicks, and where the Hon. Alex Kozinski recused himself after he was found out for posting some of his own borderline-acceptable porn on what he thought was a private web server.)

McCowen is on trial for producing group sex porn, raking in an estimated $1 million per year from 5,000 subscribers who pay $30/month for their orgy fix. (Also, prosecutors say paying the "actors" amounts to prostitution.)

What constitutes obscenity hinges on the Supreme Court's 1973 decision, which puts forth a 3-part test to determine if material is obscene based on "contemporary community standards"; that is, does the community think the material is obscene? And to argue that it's not, McCowen's attorney is turning to Google — and its cache of data on your search history.

In the trial of a pornographic Web site operator, the defense plans to show that residents of Pensacola are more likely to use Google to search for terms like “orgy” than for “apple pie” or “watermelon.” The publicly accessible data is vague in that it does not specify how many people are searching for the terms, just their relative popularity over time. But the defense lawyer, Lawrence Walters, is arguing that the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that interest in the sexual subjects exceeds that of more mainstream topics — and that by extension, the sexual material distributed by his client is not outside the norm.

It is not clear that the approach will succeed. The Florida state prosecutor in the case, which is scheduled for trial July 1, said the search data may not be relevant because the volume of Internet searches is not necessarily an indication of, or proxy for, a community’s values. [NYT]

But at the very least, it could show there are more websites related to "lesbian porn" (13.4 million) than "finding a job" (2.34 million). Ain't that a kick in community standards' pants.