realm, websites deal with sexual topics in a graphic and often degrading manner. Women are depicted as being used by men, with an entire genre of adult entertainment (bukkake) devoted to images of men ejaculating on women, often on their faces. This relevant marketplace is a marketplace where scatological humor is found, see http://www.modestypanel.com/snackorscat/, alongside scatological pornography (no citation provided out of respect for the examining attorney, but if the examining attorney wishes to do a Google search for "scat porn," the Examiner is welcome to). In the relevant marketplace, a Google search for "urination porn" brings up almost 400,000 web pages devoted to the subject.[1]
RELEVANT MARKETPLACE CONCLUSION
The fact is that in the United States, "fucking" has lost its sting. However, if the Examiner narrows the relevant marketplace to the internet, then "fucking" is certainly an impotent term. If the relevant marketplace is narrowed further to the world of adult materials, then fucking is downright bland. In Sable Communications v. FCC, the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a complete prohibition on the creation of "obscene or indecent communication" on the grounds that children needed to be protected from hearing such communications. The justification was that this restriction went too far, since it denied adults (the relevant market) access to the communication in order to shield the irrelevant market (children).
Based on the above facts, and following the above-cited authority, the Examiner should find that "fucking" is generally accepted as a non-scandalous term. In the alternative, the Examiner could find that on the internet, "fucking" is not a scandalous or immoral term. And as a fallback position, the Examiner should find that "fucking" is neither scandalous nor immoral in
18
