{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022380467955239063, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001017293997965412, 'mean_word_length': 5.111801242236025, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Judging Obscenity: A Critical History of Expert Evidence

Back in the days when the human sciences had not been tainted by eugenic experiments, the American legal realists imagined a rosy future for sociological jurisprudence. Their dream did not come true, however, either in the U.S. or in Canada: parts of the legal system were certainly transformed by scientific or technical expertise, but social science has rarely had much influence on legal developments. Nevertheless there are still people, inside and outside the legal system, who persist in imagining that our poor old common law system has become totally dominated by "experts" a category that, in Christopher Nowlin' s A Critical History of Expert Evidence 1 as in other simplistic accounts of the issue, does not differentiate between the traffic engineers who influence our seat-belt laws and the cultural sociologists who sometimes appear in court as "expert witnesses," but whose voices are rarely given much weight.