Porn tax vs. freedom of expression

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

Interesting article on the constitutionality of this latest insult to freedom. (Note: I personally do not hang out on porn sites. But if they can tax and censor one site, they can do the same to any site.)
-----

Senators seek Web porn tax
Published: August 1, 2005, 4:51 PM PDT
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

A new federal proposal that would levy stiff taxes on Internet pornographers violates constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, legal scholars say.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, an Arkansas Democrat, characterized her bill introduced last week as a way to make the Internet a "safer place" for children. The bill would impose a 25 percent tax on the revenue of most adult-themed Web sites.

"Many adult-oriented Web sites in today's online world are not only failing to keep products unsuitable for children from view, but are also pushing those products in children's faces," Lincoln said. "And it's time that we stand up and say, 'enough is enough.'"

More at: http://news.com.com/Senators+seek+Web+porn+tax/2100-1030_3-5814309.html?part=rss&tag=5814309&subj=news

[SteppingRazor]

1. In any case, I fail to see who this would curb porn sites...

Sure, they wouldn't be happy with such a huge tax on their revenues, but when you're in a business with such a massive profit margin, even a 25 percent tax wouldn't have a drastic effect.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

4. Correct me if I'm wrong, but

have they not failed to come up with a single binding constitutional definition of "porn"? One would think this would be a necessary first step if this scheme were to legally succeed...

It's a thought that just now occured to me, and I don't have an answer to it.

[mongo]

7. massive profit margin?

Sure, there are a few internet porn moguls who own thousands of sites. They have the resources to move their servers and companies offshore to avoid this tax.

But there are many, many more one person operations, internet masturbators and the like. Still even more people who make a few bucks a week by putting up a page with links to other people's sites.

I know some small time pornographers who have part of their business on the internet. Believe me, they are not getting rich on it, and have to keep their full time jobs besides doing the porn.

The real kicker about this tax is that a portion of it goes back to the FBI's Obscenity task force - to fight ADULT obscenity. So in effect, this tax on pornographers only serves to raise the money to shut these sites down.

Not to mention that this tax is unconstitutional because it is a tax based on the content of speech. How would you feel if they decided to tax "liberal" speech?

[SteppingRazor]

8. Take a deep breath, dude.

I never said I was for this tax, or for taxing porn, or for censorship. Your last sentence seems to suggest this. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm actually a very strong free speech advocate.

In any case, I'm well aware of the "small-time pornographers" you mention. I knew one who designed his own sites, then used the money to start his own music promotion company. He did nothing else but porn while taking a beating the first year or so he started his company. So he had to be doing damned well. Eventually, though, his company was successful, and he stopped hosting porn sites. So even small-time, there's heaps of money to be made -- more so when you consider that the images used are provided by other, larger companies.

You can;t deny there's scads of money to be made in porn. Smut is one of the largest industries in the country. Taken as a whole, it pulled in something like $10 billion last year. That's quite a chunk of change, no? And it doesn't count the revenue made by hotels and satellite companies.

[mongo]

9. Didn't mean to come on so strong

But this "tax" like a lot of business regulation, it favors the biggest players while stiffling competition and leaving the two-bit players out to dry.

I should be all for this bill. It will eliminate most of the free sites and people who are afraid to give out their credit card on the internet will start getting their porn from brick and mortar stores like mine.

[LoKnLoD]

2. Most RW Christian Conservative whackos

are closet porn freaks anyway. Because they are so morally suppressed, everything that feels good is evil to them. So if they raise the tax on internet porn, that raise will be pushed back on to the consumers, so they will be paying for their own wars and pork barrel projects

[quisp]

3. very misguided policy...

and most of the worst porn sites are overseas and not subject to taxation.

[Todd B]

5. Ah, the nanny society.. gotta love it.

"Many adult-oriented Web sites in today's online world are not only failing to keep products unsuitable for children from view, but are also pushing those products in children's faces," Lincoln said. "And it's time that we stand up and say, 'enough is enough.'"

Ah, more of the nanny society, huh?

How about if parents actually take an active role in raising their kids and educating them about human sexuality, right, and wrong instead of raising kids by television or having the government tell me how to raise my children.

There are thousands of children without decent access to health coverage.. why not focus on that? Or help push education inititives through Congress so we can educate our children better in the first place.

No wonder why no one gives a damn about Congress - they're too busy telling us HOW to live our lives instead of helping improve the quality of living in America.

[charlie]

6. Blanche Lincoln *again*!

I keep tripping over that lady. She just helped Republicans insert an amendment into the Energy Bill that eased 13 years of restrictions on sales of bomb-grade uranium. She was also the star senator on From, Reed, and Marshall's panel discussion of "values" and why Democrats need to get them quick, on CSPAN after the November loss.

Jeebus save me from this lady's gorked-up "values"!

[wli]

10. shuts down small operators, first amendment violation

Go figure.