Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship The Almighty Buck The Internet United States Government Politics

Senator Carper Calls for Tax on Online Porn 1145

Posted by timothy
from the why-not-a-100%-tax-on-babykissers? dept.
Better-living-thru-taxes writes "Senator Tom Carper (D-Del) is calling for a 25% tax on all internet pornograpy. The money is to help police fight online child pornographers. 'Carper says the bill will keep kids away from X-rated material.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senator Carper Calls for Tax on Online Porn

Comments Filter:
  • What is the fixation with sex? Why would a child seeing two consenting adults having sex "corrupt" them. Sex is a natural thing that happens between two people who like each other a lot. It's nothing
    to be shy about and really, rather than demonising it, we should be celebrating it. It's one of the activities that transcends all cultures on this planet and that is universally enjoyed.

    The Christian faith (who's political wing is the Republican party) for some reason believe that sex is bad and that pornography is somehow immoral. I don't know how they reached that conclusion, after all, one need only look as far as Job's daughters antics in the book of Genesis to see that the Bible is no authority on sexual morality.

    I just think that Children are not as vulnerable as these people make out. As young as twelve or thirteen I was viewing pornography because I was curious and felt a drive to seek out such material. Far from damaging my psyche, it made me a lot less nervous about my sexuality. I look back and see that period of my life as an important part of my sexual development.

    I'm sick of the "What about the children?" being used as a front to foist laws upon on us. This law isn't designed to protect our children, it's a law that takes the first bold step in pushing the Republican party's religious mantra on those who do not want and care about it.

    Without wanting to be flame-bait, the Republican part engages in what I call "henry ford" freedom:
    You can have any freedom you want, as long as it's Republican. The essence of freedom is about allowing people to do something you don't personally agree with. You may not agree with abortion or gay marriage but believing in freedom is about having the maturity to realize that the people who are gay or have abortions are consenting adults and are fully aware of the consequences of their actions.

    Simon.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 31, 2005 @08:56AM (#13207123)
      nice republican rant... although you failed to point out the basis of this article is that a democratic senator is pushing for this legislation. it seems the democratic party has been at the forefront of cencorship this past decade (ie clinton, lieberman, carter, etc), so blaming the republican party is not accurate.
    • The Christian faith (who's political wing is the Republican party)
      Any idea what the (D-...) stands for in "Senator Tom Carper (D-Del)"
      • Aye. Dems, I know it's fun to hate Repulicans, and they do do some awfully stupid stuff, but let's not overlook it when our side does something this profoundly retarded. If you live in his state, please let Tommy know he's being a jackass and that you're just going to watch TV on election night if he doesn't cut it out.
    • Sex is natural (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      hardcore porn gangbanging is not and creates a fake image of sex for children
      • Re:Sex is natural (Score:4, Insightful)

        by phoenix321 (734987) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @09:31AM (#13207284)
        If everyone involved consents and enjoys that gangbang, it seems okay to me. Who are you to prevent free men and women of legal age from having sex with each other in any number and constellation they like? Does being of "normal" values qualify? Or is having read and/or believing in an ancient BOOK needed?
        • Re:Sex is natural (Score:4, Insightful)

          by h4rm0ny (722443) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @10:11AM (#13207456) Journal

          If everyone involved consents and enjoys that gangbang, it seems okay to me.

          People who do this, do it because they are paid to, and in some cases, because they're desperate for some kind of approval or attention. It's not normal. Now if doing this fulfills someone's psychological or sexual needs, then it's their business. But boys shouldn't grow up thinking that women orgasm from giving blow-jobs or they're going to be pretty disappointed with their partners (and their partners might be pretty pissed, too).

          The problem is one of context. US society (and UK society to a lesser extent) is deeply repressed on the subject of sex. It's all very closed doors. And oddly enough, this is why so many boys grow up thinking of sex as being something purely physical. The only porn you get is brutal, wham, bam, say thank you ma'am stuff. There's no exposure to sex between two people who love each other.

          So, I think that it's the moralising people who surpress normal exposure to sex, nudity and desire that are responsible for guys growing up thinking of it in the way portrayed in porn. Because if it's kept out of normal life, made illicit, then what else do they see but the porn?

          I mean - which is going to prepare people for sexual maturity most - (Not work safe) This [domai.com], or this [pornstarmovies.org]? Maybe you see sex is just fucking, and hey - it's good exercise - but for most of us, the best sex we'll ever experience is with someone we love. If people want to protect children from corruption, they should let those children know that it's okay and to have sex with someone you love and that it doesn't have to be 8" this, 36DD that and treat the other person like an object.

          I seem to have ended up arguing for more sincere and tender porn. Well, why not. It would appeal to a lot of people, I'm sure. But mostly what I am getting at is that US and UK society itself should be more open on the subject of sex.

          And then maybe people wouldn't be using it as a sales technique everywhere I look as well.
          • Re:Sex is natural (Score:3, Informative)

            by IdleTime (561841)
            Me and my wifey are swingers and have been to many many "gang bangs" as you describe them. It's totally normal to us and a lot of fun. How many married men get to bonk beutiful women without fearing the repercussions?
          • Re:Sex is natural (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Excelsior (164338)
            People who do this, do it because they are paid to, and in some cases, because they're desperate for some kind of approval or attention. It's not normal. Now if doing this fulfills someone's psychological or sexual needs, then it's their business. But boys shouldn't grow up thinking that women orgasm from giving blow-jobs or they're going to be pretty disappointed with their partners (and their partners might be pretty pissed, too).

            People who dress up like Frodo Baggins do it because they are paid to, and b
          • Re:Sex is natural (Score:5, Informative)

            by justin12345 (846440) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @01:11PM (#13208349)
            Your argument is ridiculous. However, is also meandering so I'll have to refute it line by line:

            "People who do this, do it because they are paid to, and in some cases, because they're desperate for some kind of approval or attention. It's not normal."

            1) Many people experiment sexually. They do so in private, many people would prefer not to be recorded when having sex. Hence the need to pay people to participate in a commercial product. Just because people are paid to do something on film doesn't mean that other people don't enjoy similar scenarios in their private lives.

            2) Everyone requires some kind of approval or attention, it is normal :-) (a joke)...

            Subscribing to the idea that there is some sort of norm by which human sexual behavior can be judged is dangerous. It devalues humans which stray from it and is in-fact a subtle or not so subtle form of bigotry. Its also rather ignorant (of facts) as the individual making the statement usually assumes their own preferences to be the norm, as you do below...

            "...boys shouldn't grow up thinking that women orgasm from giving blow-jobs or they're going to be pretty disappointed with their partners...

            People often are poorly educated in many ways, blaming a lack of education on pornography is similar to blaming sci-fi on for a warped view of actual science. These are both entertainment mediums designed to allow the viewer to fantasize, they are not intended to educate. For an education on either subject many forums exist in western society.

            "US society (...) is deeply repressed on the subject of sex."

            This is a unsupportable generalization which has sadly become commonplace. Some elements of all societies are "prudish", some elements of all societies are "liberal". One of the nicer aspects of society is the great diversity of views allows an individual to associate with individuals who share (or challenge) their view point.

            "...this is why so many boys grow up thinking of sex as being something purely physical."

            There are at least two ways to refute this statement:

            1) Both men and women commonly have sex with persons with whom they are not interested in pursuing a monogamous relationship (which I'm subbing in for love as I have no desire to evaluate love rationally). Many individuals facilitate between short term sexual relationships and long term monogamous sexual relationships, it is not a uniquely male behavior.

            2) There is the archetype of the tough guy (alternatively "pimp", "playa", "gigolo", etc) who must subjugate his sexual partners to avoid de-masculine-ization (sp). Its often present in young men, suggesting that it is sometimes an immature attitude and that many will "grow out of it". I would speculate that such an attitude is often born from fears of rejection, not pornography. Though pornography will often reflect the attitude of this archetype, I doubt its a primary cause, or even a secondary one.

            "There's no exposure to sex between two people who love each other."

            On the contrary, this is the most common depiction of sexuality in our popular culture. While I don't have statistics that compare the prevalence of perceived emotional involvement per sexual act viewed (or read, etc), its very, very common for characters to be emotionally involved in most dramas that depict sexual acts.

            "Because if it's kept out of normal life, made illicit, then what else do they see but the porn? "

            Many would argue that our society is completely saturated with sex. You can view depictions of sexual acts and relationships on prime time tv. There are many other examples.

            "...which is going to prepare people for sexual maturity most - (Not work safe) This, or this?"

            You reinforce the point I made above by presupposing your own tastes and experiences as the model by which all others should be judged.

            There can be ar
            • Re:Sex is natural (Score:3, Insightful)

              by h4rm0ny (722443)

              The problem here is that you are not arguing for more sincere and tender porn, but instead making a bigoted argument against everything else.

              Where in my post did I argue for restricting people's ability to create or obtain porn? I'll answer that question for you - nowhere.

              Here's another one: where did I say people were wrong to enjoy it? Nowhere.

              You have decided you know who I am (a moralising bigot) and have re-interpreted everything I said into something you feel you can have a good shout about.
          • What porn have you seen where women have orgasms from giving blow jobs??? torrent links are fine ;)
          • Re:Sex is natural (Score:3, Insightful)

            by STrinity (723872)
            People who do this, do it because they are paid to, and in some cases, because they're desperate for some kind of approval or attention. It's not normal.

            No, it's not normal. Neither is being blonde-haired or black-skinned in the US (or blonde-haired and black skinned). Normalcy is a statistical concept, not a moral one.

            If someone likes getting money for sex or being watched during it, good on them. It's their choice to make, not yours or mine.
    • one need only look as far as Job's daughters antics in the book of Genesis to see that the Bible is no authority on sexual morality.

      Job's children died in the first chapter of Job when a wall fell on them. Perhaps you mean Lot's daughters? And the Bible called them evil. I don't get your statement.

      Sorry for the off-topic post. I just like to make sure people who criticize the Bible at least get the stories right. :)
      • Lot's daughters for sure.

        The Bible has another interesting little episode which essentially approves rape as long as the rapist is forced to marry the woman he raped.

        The whole point of the Old Testament is about spreading God's chosen few over the face of the Earth. So anything which boosts the number of children born (rape, polygamy, daughters getting pregnant from their own father) while ensuring that women only get one sexual partner to delay disease transmission by sex, is permissible.

    • Yet the senator who proposed the bill is a Democrat, who Christian groups rated as voting 16% pro-family...
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 31, 2005 @09:17AM (#13207223)
      Why would a child seeing two consenting adults having sex "corrupt" them.

      As someone who was once addicted to porn, I can tell you that it can seriously screw up your notions about the realities of sex. Easy access to pornography on the internet during my single years definitely caused me some problems once I got into a real relationship. It's hard to settle down with one woman when you've been going through 20 different girls every night, even when that one woman has the advantage of being real and not just an image. I'm still trying to deal with the effects that such easy access to pornography has dealt to my psyche.

      Granted, that's my problem and my responsibility, and no one else's, and I'm not advocating the nanny-state. But don't be so quick to think that porn never hurt anybody.
      • Did you ever stop to think that perhaps finding it difficult to be monogamous is normal and natural for men?

        The genetically successful male breeds with as many partners as he can, as often as he can.
        • The genetically successful male breeds with as many partners as he can, as often as he can.

          This it has in common with the female. The BBC has done their studies anonimously and there it showed that the same percentage of women and man commited adultery.

          When asked personally, meaning asked by a person and not via an anonymous PC or the like, more men the women commited adultery. So what it shows is that either men brag and women lie about how often they do it, or both.

          When I asked my (female-)friends they sa
        • by almostmanda (774265) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @12:36PM (#13208129)
          The genetically successful male breeds with as many partners as he can, as often as he can.

          This is bullshit. Evolutionary success depends upon producing the most children who go on to have more children, not to spread the most of your genetic material around. A well cared for child that receives proper parental attention, who grows into a stable adult, is a greater "success" and will likely breed more and better children than five kids who are malnourished and mentally underdeveloped without the interaction and protection of the father.

          I'm not disagreeing with your first statement. Monogamy can be hard, but don't pull that "men are hardwired for infidelity" crap. The notion that women are "supposed" to try desperately to hold on to one man while men are "supposed" to want to spread their baby batter everywhere is a product of our culture, and is a cop-out for both sexes.
          • by BananaPeel (747003) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @02:06PM (#13208643)
            You oversimplify. You are presuming that the evolutionary pressure that shaped us and allowed us to live what is now considered a normal life. The reality is that over the period that evolution has shaped us life has on average been brutal and comparitively very short. This would strongly favour spreading your seed around. Stability is important but the degree of stability is relative and where lifespan is short it probably becomes less important. However in some circumstances stability would be highly favourable. The upshot of this is that what you would expect to see is a variety of different behaviours to fulfill different niches. Sure enough you will find that the degree of testosterone expression in both males and females variers hugely creating people who are comparitivly promiscuios and people who are aren't. Sadly many people think that everybody else is the same as them and should be able to see thing in the same way and behave in the same way as they do. They just totally miss the point that a large proportion of the population just have a different dominant forces in their brain chemisrty and that these difference are there for evolutionary reasons.
          • by Surt (22457) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @02:23PM (#13208753) Homepage Journal
            There's actually little evidence to support that position. All evidence seems to suggest that people who have 'poorer' social outcomes are more likely to have children. Look at the number of children those living in poverty in this country have, versus the number of children the average phd has.
      • by garett_spencley (193892) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @11:04AM (#13207677) Journal
        I'm curious. I have never had a chance to speak to someone who was addicted to porn and I'd really like to ask you one thing if you don't mind.

        Do you view porn as being addictive, or do you view yourself as having an addictive personality?

        I have to admit, I'm a little defensive and biased since I run adult sites for a living. I've had easy access to porn for over 10 years online and I look at porn every day as part of my business.. and I've never had any problems with addiction, or my relationships etc.

        I have suffered a serious drug addiction to speed in my past, and so I understand how powerful and devastating addiction can be. It caused me to steal from people I love, it kept me up all night on binges, it affected my work life and my social life etc. I had to go through rehab and group therapy etc. Yet I've never experienced any of the warning signs that might lead me to believe that I could be addicted to porn. I've never thought about porn (at least excessively) while away from it. I've never neglected any responsibilities so I could look at porn (never left work, never missed a bill so I could pay for porn etc.) I've never once gotten bored of my wife or turned her down for sex so that I could go jack off to 20 different girls instead etc.

        I'm not trying to downplay your addiction. I am fully aware that there are people who suffer through addictions to porn. And, as someone who suffered drug addiction, I understand the power of addiction and I understand how serious it can be on ones life.

        I'm just wondering, do you think porn is addictive ? Or are people who get addicted to porn the type of people who would also easily get addicted to gambling, video games, hookers etc. ?
        • by sgant (178166) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @12:37PM (#13208138) Homepage Journal
          It's addictive personality. Much the same way as alcohol and drugs can ruin a persons view on many things.

          But to ban something because some people get addicted to it is nonsense. Some people are addicted to overeating, should we ban food next?

          How about this, we all become responsible for our own behavior. The guy that you were responding to blames the porn for his addiction to it, instead of laying the blame on himself for no control. Moderation in all things is best, but some people have no control. So does that mean that since some peoples lives are ruined by alcohol, drugs, porn, gambling and food we should ban it all...you know...just in case?
        • by Micah (278) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @02:53PM (#13208950) Homepage Journal
          Interesting viewpoint and question from an adult site operator. I'll see if I can answer from a Christian perspective. (I don't know if grandparent poster is a Christian, but he certainly has some similarities to what Christian men go through.)

          There are many, many, MANY Christian men who struggle with addiction to pornography. I'm not one of them (thank God!) but the ones who are tell all kinds of stories about wanting to quit viewing it, but simply cannot. I can think of some reasons why this is a problem:

          1. Christian women expect their Christian men to be monogomous and faithful to only them. Having their men look at porn is extremely offensive to them, it makes them feel inadequate.

          2. Porn gives men unrealistic expectations of what sex should be like.

          3. We believe that God created sex to be a PRIVATE expression of love between a MARRIED man and woman. Pornography violates and distorts this in the most complete manner imaginable.

          Jesus said, (in Matthew 5:27-28) "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery;' but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart." This is the problem for Christians -- it is IMPOSSIBLE to look at porn without violating this.

          I can see why it is a bigger problem for Christians than non-Christians. Non-Christians are simply absorbed into the sex-focused culture of our day, and don't see anything wrong with it. And frankly, that is their problem. I am not going to preach to a non-Christian about proper sexual viewpoints -- if they reject God anyway, what is the point? They might as well live like they want.

          Christians also must battle between what their flesh wants and what the spirit of God in them wants. Paul goes on a long lament in Romans 7 that he keeps doing the things he knows he should not do, and does not do the things he knows he should do. This is exactly what porn addicts experience.

          I will also point out a great Christian ministry that helps men (and women) get out of this trip. Setting Captives Free. [settingcaptivesfree.com] The site has a number of testimonies about how porn has wrecked their lives, and how they were able to find freedom.
          • 1) then the women have a problem with their men. It is not my duty to subsidize their problem.

            2) no, it doesn't. It only sets "unreasonable expectations" if you (or your partner) are too narrow minded to enjoy the activities you want to enjoy. The people in pornography are not cartoons - they are real people actually doing those things. Some of us do those things without a camera handy.

            3) BFD. You have your beliefs and I have mine. You're free to your beliefs so long as you don't try to legislate them on me
      • by cahiha (873942) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @12:47PM (#13208200)
        As someone who was once addicted to porn, I can tell you that it can seriously screw up your notions about the realities of sex. Easy access to pornography on the internet during my single years definitely caused me some problems

        Hundreds of millions of people have "easy access to pornography" and no relationship problems. Obviously, your utilization of on-line pornography was a symptom, not a cause, of your problems.

        If you don't want to have easy access to pornography on-line, you have many ways of putting yourself in a position that you don't: get rid of your home Internet connection, connect through a filter, or join a monastery.
      • Now I realize that I'd trade every scrap of porn I ever saw for a real woman, physical imperfections and all, who actually loved me. So I worry less about being "addicted to porn" and more about trying to not be a recluse spending all his time on Slashdot instead of dating (not very successful at this so far).
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 31, 2005 @09:23AM (#13207255)
      Sex feels good. Sex is free. Sex can relieve stress, let you express love and is one of the most intimate acts in the world.

      It is because of this that profiteers hate it. Why? Because instead of buying products, people will have sex. This is bad for the economy.
      Getting into Freudian philosophy and science, has it ever occured to you that perhaps large or covetted things like computers, cars, possessions like iPods or other things are just temporary mental replacements for the lack of sex drive or the lack of sex at all? Maybe that intimacy we experience with our toys is what replaces the intimacy between two people?

      The control of sex is the control of basic human emotion and instinct. If you control sex or the sex drive, the base of all instinct in mammals, you control the person is belongs to. Don't have sex! Buy these indulgences and be saved from Satan! Having sex is a sin and will breed disease! Come to church more and fork over your money!

      Not all churches are like that, or even the ones who used to do that stuff actively *coughcatholiccough*. But the fact remains, the meaning of life for a human being, at the base, is to reproduce, be happy, and keep yourself occupied.

      Supression of instinct, especially sex, breeds a consumer - someone looking for something to fill the void. In a society where you can turn on the TV and see a child with all of his limbs amputated or a "precision" American bomber carpet bombing populated areas, I find it disgusting that this society bars SEX, SEX of all things, from television, but allows people to go on TV, preach about beating up prostitutes and being a "playa" or how various thousands of people are dying.

      Neither should be barred. But the one you'd think wouldn't be, is.
    • Sex is a natural thing that happens between two people who like each other a lot.



      "Bukkake is when a Mommy and a Daddy and a Daddy and a Daddy and a Daddy and a Daddy and a Daddy all decide that Mommy needs some special facial moisturiser" (from bash.org)

      ;-) (I agree with you though)

    • by PsiPsiStar (95676) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @10:31AM (#13207552)
      Saying that the Republican party is a wing of any religion is an insult to that religion.

      Republicans use religion as a stepping stone to gain office, but that ignores the commandment against using the Lord's name in vain, which seems to be the most misunderstood commandment. People seem to think it has somthing to do with not saying "goddamnit" which would have been relevant back when people thought that they could actually invoke the name of a god to curse other people.

      In other words, you're breaking a commandment if you use the name of God to further your own selfish interests.

    • Yo, Senator!

        How about a 25% tax increase on all the corporations who register in tiny dipshit Delaware in order to avoid paying taxes in their home areas?

      Taxes that are supposed to go to pay for children's services like health care, security, and education?

        Oh? No longer interested? Fuck you, shitheel politician whore!!!
    • I believe St. Augustine [btinternet.com] is credited with being the first self loathing, sex-is-dirty type christian.
      Unfortunately, he set the tone for all those that followed.
  • Aren't there constitutional issues here? It seems odd to have a situation where the IRS decides what is and what isn't pornography.
    • It seems odd to have a situation where the IRS decides what is and what isn't pornography.

      I think looking at pricewatch.com is pornography.

      Imagining buying 8 10KRPM SCSI drives with a decent scsi RAID card... ooooh. that gives me feelings inside that rivals large breasted women and shorn vaginas.

      or even looking at what kind of rack servers are available. Beowulf clusters of multi-processor servers with RAM and storage totals calculated in Petabytes.

      I'll be back in a minute. gotta get a tissue.
  • Ha! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Uber Banker (655221) * on Sunday July 31, 2005 @08:56AM (#13207126)
    They could tax Empornium [empornium.us] for 100% and it will still be free!
  • by DoktorTomoe (643004) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @08:57AM (#13207130)
    Sex! Minors interested in sex. Minors using someones credit card to pay for porn (ordo minors in the US actually get a credit card legally?) Pedophiles ... Man, that sounds like just out of the "box of horrors" of contemporary politics. He forgot terrorists, tought...
  • Cute Trick (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rob Carr (780861) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @08:57AM (#13207131) Homepage Journal
    Who's going to oppose taxing online porn?

    If you oppose it, then you must be someone who preys on children, right?

    Great tactics on the part of the Senator. Think of the children!

  • by Message Board (695681) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @08:58AM (#13207145) Journal
    A 25% tax on what the government calls pornography [thinkgeek.com] might impact sales. Be afraid, thinkgeek - you and your action shots.
  • Who decides? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 31, 2005 @08:59AM (#13207151)
    And just who gets to decide what constitutes Pornography?
    Are we going to tax web pages which talk about breast cancer, just because they contain the word breast?
    And how would such taxes be collected, Especially if the server resides outside the US?
    • Re:Who decides? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by John Seminal (698722) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @09:21AM (#13207245) Journal
      And just who gets to decide what constitutes Pornography? Are we going to tax web pages which talk about breast cancer, just because they contain the word breast? And how would such taxes be collected, Especially if the server resides outside the US?

      They will have a definition of porn as anything with penetration. Or anything used for a prurient purpose. Anyone can tell the difference between porn and a breast cancer website. I highly doubt the breast cancer website will has pictures of the ass, or women moaning.

      If the server is outside the USA, it will be blocked. Just like a tarriff, if a company does not pay, they can not sell their product inside this country.

      Taxes would be collected by forcing pornographic websites to register with the IRS. If they don't and get caught, then the owner will probably go to jail for tax evasion.

      • Re:Who decides? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Xarius (691264)
        If the server is outside the USA, it will be blocked.

        How do you propose that the US "government" identify every single pornographic website that does exist, and will exist in the future, and block it, and keep this entire system up to date...

        And to think, the criticism the "free" nations of the world give China for its Internet censorship...
      • Re:Who decides? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MrDomino (799876)

        If the server is outside the USA, it will be blocked. Just like a tarriff, if a company does not pay, they can not sell their product inside this country.

        Gee, that almost sounds familiar [wikipedia.org]. This is real rich. The entire political system seems hell-bent on turning this place into a police state---the Republicans in the name of family values and moral sanctity, and the Democrats in the name of increased tax revenue.

        And people scoffed when I said I wanted to break away and start up an isolated farming comm

  • by abrotman (323016) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @09:00AM (#13207155)
    It's about time our elected officials started paying taxes.
  • by putko (753330) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @09:02AM (#13207164) Homepage Journal
    If the porn people moved offshore, they'd avoid all sorts of irritating laws.

    The US just changes its enforcement of the record keeping laws (2259 it is called, if I recall correctly). It is a sword of damocles hanging over porn webmasters. See fleshbot.com for more info.

    The sooner the online porn stuff just moves offshore (ala the casinos), the better. Then they can tell the Govt. to find a new whipping boy.

    • Many distributors, paysite owners, and content promoters have gone offshore. In adult web, offshoring makes sense; IBCs and holding companies make sense. Frankly, if there is anything preventing most Americans in the adult web industry from doing so, it's ignorance and Americentrism.
  • by creimer (824291) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @09:03AM (#13207166) Homepage
    Violence is OK but sex is bad. [userfriendly.org] Or, how politicians can carp about something for free without someone demanding their head. Seriously, how many people are going to admit that they watch pornography but don't want to pay Uncle Sam for the privilige?
  • by Snaller (147050) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @09:04AM (#13207169) Journal
    Not sex....
  • Porn -- Pedo (Score:3, Insightful)

    by baadger (764884) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @09:04AM (#13207170)
    Yep taxing easy-to-find in your face, perfectly legal pornography is the perfect approach to getting rid of them hidden secretive rings of shadey pedophilia dealers.

    Children interested in sex doesn't correlate to children being groomed by pedophiles.

    Get a friggin grip.
  • by William Robinson (875390) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @09:05AM (#13207178)
    First of all, they will have to justify why Internet is being targetted, and not other mediums. How are they going to classify a _porn_? And how will the law be enforced for servers in disguise? Servers outside country? different protocols (yeah, keeping an eye on all the protocols will be hurricane task)? file formats?

    There are gazillions of loopholes, that will needed to be plugged before they can see money flowing in.

  • by 1u3hr (530656) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @09:05AM (#13207180)
    from TFA: the bill would require online pornographers to use age-verification software to block children's access.. Mostly this seems to be based on credit cards. How on earth can someone reliably "verify" the age of a person of the web? Any CC numbers, etc used will be traded and swapped around. And of course, what about overseas-based sites? For a saving of 25%, they'll all be in a short time.
  • Offshore (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ThreeDayMonk (673466) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @09:07AM (#13207186) Homepage
    It won't work. Add heavy taxation to the already stringent legal requirements, and the remaining US-based porn companies will simply take their operations offshore, to more amenable locations such as the Netherlands.
  • by weave (48069) * on Sunday July 31, 2005 @09:08AM (#13207191) Journal
    Nevada brothels are almost begging the state to tax them. They know full well that once the state is hooked on an income stream, they are not going to do something to get rid of it, like decide that prostitution should not be legal.

    So maybe this is a good thing for the porn industry.

  • Taxes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by psychofox (92356) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @09:13AM (#13207206)
    I can't stand taxes which are for some specific purpose. A tax is a tax. All the money should go into a big pool where it is divided as appropriate. In the same way, if it is felt that money is required in order to fund a fight against paedophillia or whatever, money should be available from existing taxes.

    Down with stealth taxes!!!

  • The logic here... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by larien (5608) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @09:21AM (#13207242) Homepage Journal
    You're basically proposing that legitimate pornographers (some people might have issues with that kind of statement, but go with for now...) are paying to police the paedophiles...

    Also, this is proposing some kind of direct link between adult porn and kiddie porn. The fact that there will be a bill linking it will be enough for a lot of people to see adult porn as causing kiddie porn...

  • by gristlebud (638970) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @09:23AM (#13207256)
    and the government's debt was wiped out in 2 months.
  • Great Idea! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Winkhorst (743546) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @09:34AM (#13207299)
    Then we can enact a 25% tax on all food sold online to fight obesity! Next we can enact a 25% tax on gun-friendly sites to fight domestic violence. Oh yeah, and we can enact a 25% tax on government sites to fight monomaniacal presidents who want to conquer the world. And then we could enact a 25% tax on religious texts sold online to fight ignorance and superstitution. Wow, we could enact a 25% tax on video game sites to help fund education. I'm on a roll here, this is fun! And...and...we could enact a 25% tax on pay-per-view news sites to fight STUPID POLITICIANS who think their job is to pass idiotic laws that make them and their constituents feel good!
  • by ballantrae (586683) <ron&jlinx,com> on Sunday July 31, 2005 @09:37AM (#13207311)
    This isn't about child pornography or porn in general. This is about taxing the internet.

    Anyone with at least half a mind can see that the Senator couldn't care less about pornography or child porn for that matter.

    Taxing an industry does nothing to regulate said industry, all it does is take money from it. If he wanted to regulate it, and pay for the regulation, then he'd attach fines to the laws. But the truth is, what he wants is an easy way to "break into" the internet industries.

    These people tax us in everything we do. We have ONE industry taht is currently not taxed to death and beyond and that is the internet.

    This is an excuse. He and his friends have to be stopped cold right here and now. Don't think that it's just him either. I'll bet you anything a bunch of his buddies got together and thought this would be a great way to start a new "cause" and thus manage to rip us off in the process.

    We have to stop this guy now. Unless of course, you like the idea of your local congressman and senator mucking about in even this part of our lives.

    -ron
  • by Pizaz (594643) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @09:43AM (#13207339)
    They may take our pr0n, but they'll never take OUR FREEDOM! Oh wait...
  • by also aswell (781190) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @09:52AM (#13207376) Journal

    This may be a bit off topic,, but the article is so vague and short almost anything will fit into this discussion.

    Some slashdoters may have noticed that the church has become a major player in politics recently. Part of their tax exemption is based on staying out of politics. The Bush administration is going after many conservation groups with the IRS because they have broken the politics rule.

    Churches own billions of $$$ worth of prime realestate in the heart of our cities tax free and thus are a burden on cash starved public schools that depend on real estate taxes for survival.

    I don't really need to go into the occasional priest's daliance with young boys, that's just an anomily.

    So why try and tax internet porn, most of which is offshore, difficult to track, etc.? Tax the churches which have been getting a free ride in this country for far too long.

    Churches need to be placed under the same guidelines as other institutions. They should not get any special benefits just for being churches. If they want some kind of benefits for nonprofit stuff/community service, then they should be under some guidelines for all nonprofits/community servers.

    Here are a couple links to taxing the churches...

    http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/cal-tax-ex empt.htm [sullivan-county.com]

    http://www.taxchurches.com/ [taxchurches.com]

  • by Beardo the Bearded (321478) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @10:46AM (#13207609)
    Uh, if they put a 25% tax on porn, won't the porn vendors just move to countries where they don't tax you? There are other countries than the US.

    Look at gambling. The biggest centres are offshore in countries with loose (or non-existent) tax and gambling laws. The same thing will happen with porn. The people who run these operations are not stupid guys with their dicks flapping in the wind. They're smart, they're business savvy,and they probably make more than the senator in question. (Funnily enough, for the same job - sticking your dick in places it may or may not belong.)
  • by ellem (147712) * <ellem52NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday July 31, 2005 @10:58AM (#13207657) Homepage Journal
    1) Sex and Religion. If Sex and Religion were, in fact, the issue here - here's your short answer. Religion actually has a lot of things to say about sex and rightfully so. It is a very short window of time that sex won't kill you. You know since say... the invention of Penicillin to now. Prior ro that VD killed. Now we giggle. AIDS will still kill you but you have to pretty much be TRYING to get AIDS to get it. Yeah yeah, blood transfusion, yadda yadda... to get AIDS you pretty much need to be shooting up or have relatively unsafe sex.

    So Religion was right to warn/forbid against promiscuity... kills of the flock, less cash in the coffers.

    2) It's not about sex it's about pr0n. No one is trying to take your pr0n away. They want to tax pr0n and use the money to help pay for Kiddie pr0n investigations, and prosecutions.

    Look if you ever find yourself defending kiddie pr0n or kiddie pr0nographers just stop and admit you lost the debate. It's unwinnable. If Buscho said they were invading Canada tomorrow to rid the North America's from kiddie pr0n the World would jump right in line and scream KILL CANADA. It's just how repellent kiddie pr0n is. Deal.

    3) As for the Christian Right -- they're not calling for this. Some Democrat is -- clearly in an attempt to make Democrats seem more Family Friendly. Whatever.

    Now SlashDopes if you don't understand number one... I'm with ya. I'd love to bang the snot out of every thigh high booted, thong showing, belly button ring wearing cock tease I see on the E train. It's just a really bad idea.

    If you think for a second number two will go down as advertised you must really buy in to this Government is there to help us bullshit. That money is going in the same BLACK HOLE the 2B USD the FCC was supposed to use to wire up all of our schools. The Government isn't evil, it's incompetent and bloated. Cut it down immediately.

    As for number three if you need anymore proof that all the politicians are whores then you'll never get it.

    Please return to your orgies at your places of worship you Baalist bastards!
    • Prior ro that VD killed.

      Now we giggle.

      you have to pretty much be TRYING to get AIDS to get it. ...

      I'd love to bang the snot out of every thigh high booted, thong showing, belly button ring wearing cock tease I see on the E train. ...

      Please return to your orgies at your places of worship you Baalist bastards!


      I sure hope this is a joke, though either way wading through this much incoherent text makes my brain feel like mush.
  • by hotspotbloc (767418) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @11:35AM (#13207823) Homepage Journal
    So Sen. Carper wants to start a huge new federal tax and give it to the police? Has anyone else noticed that as your local city or town cuts back on money for everything from schools, road repair, public recreation areas (like public pools) to libraries the police are the only ones not only not getting hit with these budget cuts, they are the only ones consistently seeing budget increases?

    In my city the Chief of Police makes $151k USD and his lieutenants make at least $110k USD per year. I know primary care medical doctors that don't make that kind of money.

    I say we tell the police to stop messing around with their "busy work" like arresting people for simple marijuana possession (the number one reason for criminal arrest in the US) that costs the taxpayer on average >$8k USD per arrest, cut back on the number of police officers, stop buying them a new >$30k USD cruiser every two years and do some real work.

    While there are a lot of good cops out there, the system that governs them is corrupt and needs major overhaul. Sen. Carper's tax is just more pork (no pun intended) for Washington to give out.

    Fuck that.

  • You can only tax what is delivered. No taxes no delivery, simple as that.

    By doing so all that US will get is the destruction of its online porn industry (if it can be called industry), all players will migrate to Canada and Mexico, or to some other country where they are not taxed.

    Politicians are not worry about technical issues, all they want to do is pretend that they really worry about people.

  • 25% tax on porn?? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by photon317 (208409) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @12:36PM (#13208133)

    Do they have any idea how much money that is? I'm all for it - we could probably eliminate all other taxes the government collects and still double the budget.

The world is moving so fast these days that the man who says it can't be done is generally interrupted by someone doing it. -- E. Hubbard

Working...