“What’s in your wallet?”
This is too transparent. Washington has two goals with this preposterous idea: (1) taxation of internet usage; (2) regulation of the internet. Free-flowing exchange of information– or in other words just plain freedom— is something that a modern day politician absolutely cannot tolerate.
The goals, however, have been hard to achieve. If you say, “We are going to charge a tax on your web surfing, or your e-mail,” you will get about as far as if you try to throw a feather across the room. So instead you try to find something that cattle can rally behind– such as doing something “for the children.” And in this case, children need money from the distribution of porn. Amazing, but that is what they are arguing.
A group of centrist Democrats that includes Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah is proposing putting a 25 percent tax on Internet pornography sales and require visitors to the Web sites to prove they are adults. [emphasis added]
The group released a report Wednesday that said the number of pornographic Web pages has grown 3,000 percent since 1998 and federal laws must be changed to keep children away from them.
The think tank Third Way said there were 14 million pornographic Web pages in 1998 and 420 million today.
The report said 12- to 17-year-olds are the top consumers of Internet pornography, based on older studies that found adult Web sites make their money based mainly on how many visitors they attract.
Notice that they want the tax rate set at 25% on internet pornography sales. So in other words, we’re against it, but we don’t mind taking a quarter of the take from it. Nice.
The politicians, and any parents who might be interested in their cause, might want to read the Terms of Service of their ISPs. In the midst, they will surely find language saying that the account holder is responsible not only for his own surfing but for anyone whom the account holder allows to connect. In other words– and I’m sorry to have to point this out to “concerned parents” everywhere– you haven’t been doing your job.
The hilarious thing about the bill is that, one, it will make the US government essentially a 1/4 stock holder of the porn industry. Thus, two, it’ll make the US government the largest pornographer in the world. And last, once the money starts pouring in and the feds get used to and dependant on it, laws will be written to ensure that even more porn is made.
Think about the last one, the feds are making billions of dollars off online porn. Suddenly the pornographers will have a ton of influence on the feds. They’ll get any new laws they’ll want because the feds will want to keep the gravy train rolling.
Does anyone think this stuff through?! Does Jim Matheson really want MORE online porn?! Does he really want to give pornographers more political clout than the NRA and NARP combined?!
If I were a pornographer I’d be BEGGING for this law to be passed. When passed I’d simply raise my rates accordingly. Then I’d sit back and know I’d be untouchable under the law.
Heck, here’s a great example. The Supreme Court has recently determined that P2P companies can be sued for the actions of its users. About two weeks later the House gave gun manufacturers complete immunity for any liability for use of their guns. In other words, it’s more important to protect Brittany Spears’ paycheck a human life. Why? Because the NRA has power. Think what the world will be like when pornographers get that much power!
The other predictable piece of bullshit we’re all going to have to wade through is the “war on terror” patriot-land rationale for monitoring what websites are acceptable to be in the Web — and you will be officially monitored to see what you look at — as opposed to unofficially monitoring what you look at.
The same cretins who resent the Bill of Rights meaning exactly what it says — will use the behavior of a few criminal fanatics as the excuse for regulating everyone’s behavior. I didn’t used to think that conservatism was supposed to mean passing laws about whether or not you could read or look or think.
Google is getting porn revenues and paying corporate tax, so porn is already being taxed that way. The government is getting a chunk of the porn dollar now. Google is swimming in cash, porn is a real big dollar generator. What do people think, people are blogging about tech and making millions of bucks? There are tons of porn ads and sponsored links for porn. The search engines aren’t giving these ads away. One persons toxic waste is the others supper. It’s not just Google. The whole search industry is getting rich from porn. It’s a free country. It’s not how I want to make my money, but I don’t have greedy VC’s making demands on me either.
Look at DMOZ. The Open Directory is the most widely distributed data base of Web content classified by humans. Its editorial standards body of net-citizens provide the collective brain behind resource discovery on the Web. Our collective brain is loaded with dirty thoughts Copyright © 1999-2004 Netscape. It’s getting to the point where the only thing making money online is the porn or the killing for fun games. The two are starting to form an alliance for their joint survival. Keep the Google Ads rolling John, maybe you can start marketing death here, if porn isn’t your thing.
“What’s in your wallet?” Not a hell of a lot of anything.
Who thought this crap up?
1. A 25% tax on “internet pornography sales“, when the article states studies that found adult Web sites make their money based mainly on how many visitors they attract.
They are (mainly) selling “eye-balls” to advertisers, not smut to children.
2. software exists that allows Web site operators to require the same proof of age that brick-and-mortar stores require before selling pornography.
And what software would that be? They used to require credit card numbers, until the major credit card processors stopped accepting porn-related charges – due to the large percentage of contested charges i.e. “That wasn’t me, honey. Someone else must have stolen my card number. You know that I would never look at PORN!!!” 🙂
3. the 25 percent excise tax would raise funds for law enforcement to fight cyberspace crimes and for educating Internet users on how to keep children away from adult sites.
Yet another “sin tax” to be used for vague, noble-sounding purposes. Kind of like how the tobacco settelment money was supposed to be used for anit-smoking education and smoking-related medical costs – yeah, right! Once that money is in the general fund – its pork adobo.
I can’t wait to see a federally-funded program to “educate internet users…”. LOL
I know where Rep. Matheson’s nonsense comes from. We’ve been fighting a recent law passed by the Utah State Righteouslature that slapped a 10% tax on adult-oriented businesses to fund programs to “protect the children”. No surprise from the state that created the nation’s first “Porn Czar” (now defunct).
Yes, the lawmakers have qualms about sinfulness, but are more than happy to take a cut of the action.
Matheson has to prove his right-wing stripes with holier-than-thou legislation like this. He’s a Democrat in one of the Reddest Republican district’s in the country. An anomaly.
For more info, visit http://www.andrewmccullough.org, the Web site of the Libertarian candidate for Utah’s attorney general.
-Cabot Nelson, vice chair, Libertarian Party of Utah
Are these guys unics or puratins? I dont mean to be crude, but who hasn’t jerked off to internet porn. Its a very natural thing and the govertment can’t stop it. Humans are sexual. we can’t help it and what would you rather have, uncontrolled rapes or harmless materbation. As far as the save the children agument goes, it the parents job, not the governtment’s to police thier childrens internet habits. If the internet was child proof, what would be the point, there would be nothing worth surfing.
Hey, what’s the tax on inheritance? I believe it can be as high as 50%. Why would we accept that yet not accept this. I say ‘go for it’.
This is what we (Utah) get for electing a Democratic Congressman: conservative morality combined with liberal tax-and-spend. His plan is typical Utah though; tax the hell out of sin and claim it’s for the children.
And just how are we (err, uh, *cough*) I mean ‘they’ supposed to prove they are over 18? I suppose he/she would just have to provide the porn site with his/her date-of-birth, address, SS number … you know, the stuff banks ask for when issuing credit cards.
What’s wrong with this picture?
First Orrin “RIAA” Hatch and now this guy. Is there something in the water?