Hmmm, I wrote a response to this earlier but must not have clicked "post."

I doubt this would be of much use, because there's really no way to verify where the surfers are coming from with a high degree of accuracy; geoIP tracking is only somewhat accurate, billing addresses for credit cards can be thousands of miles away from the customer's location, customers can use proxy servers, etc. Additionally, The prosecution will argue that without specifics on individual users (where exactly they reside, etc), there's no way to verify the validity of the data. (The argument of using porn in hotels is very different; one has only to check into a hotel to test what adult content they offer, there are no issues of whether the viewing is occurring at the hotel, etc.) I could totally see a prosecutor shooting a million holes through that defense.

Additionally, it could backfire; a state like OK could, for example, do what Utah is trying to do and enact laws making Internet-based porn illegal to deliver to OK residents. A high-profile case would be all the right wing loonies would need to push such a thing through.

The last point on this is that I suspect the FSC, which has between its board, it's attorneys, and its members some of the sharpest minds in adult, has already considered the issues of online consumers of porn. If this were an approach they thought they could use, I'm sure it would have been brought up in the Extreme Associates case or one of the other recent cases.

For better or worse, the Miller test is pretty much what we have to go on, and unless you can convince Edna and Elmo from Tulsa with an argument that is pretty airtight, I think they have a pretty good argument that the dearth of adult stores and other adult activity in OK is a pretty good argument that community standards in OK don't support porn availability there.