Slashdot Mirror
Senator Carper Calls for Tax on Online Porn
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.'"
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.
Aren't there constitutional issues here? It seems odd to have a situation where the IRS decides what is and what isn't pornography.
They could tax Empornium for 100% and it will still be free!
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...
Screw the FSM - Real geeks believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn
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!
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
A 25% tax on what the government calls pornography might impact sales. Be afraid, thinkgeek - you and your action shots.
Not sex....
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Who decides what is "grossly immoral"? You, the government? Immorality (sin) is personal between you and your god(s). Crime is a social violation that harms others. The acts of consenting adults are not crimes.
So maybe this is a good thing for the porn industry.
Down with stealth taxes!!!
Umm, a *DEMOCRAT* Senator is calling for this.
Another proof at how the left wing doesn't know what its extreme left wing is doing.
This is the state of the Democratic party, sadly. They're trying to woo moderates back into the fold(Hillary Clinton etc) by imposing conservative morality. The lesson of the last 5 years is: the more people you threaten and alienate, the more popular you are to conservative voters. I hate seeing the Democrats give up like this, I wish they could find a smarter way to fight the insanity of the american voter.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
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.
Although they *might* be immoral, it's none of the state's business. Morals and values, as long as no other persons freedom is harmed, are a personal matter for each and every adult. Churches may demand a special behavior, can compel its members to certain restrictions - but not on everyone. Every man and woman is free to accept the restrictions of their religion or to don't have a religion at all.
And we as a rather advanced society have finally separated church and state, thank God. We don't mandate morality, just non-freedom-hurting behavior. Two consenting adults doing horribly awful acts of sexuality to each other may be disgusting, but it's not anyones responsibility to "teach them morals". Government is not parenthood and the church can't call the police or the lynchmob. I hope it stays that way.
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.
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!
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
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
They may take our pr0n, but they'll never take OUR FREEDOM! Oh wait...
How on earth can someone reliably "verify" the age of a person of the web?
That's easy. Just ask them: a/s/l?
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
http://www.taxchurches.com/
"Where did this apple come from?"
--Alan Turing
I'd just like to make the small point that morality does not require theology. There are lots of us atheists who have a very strong sense of morality which has nothing to do with illegality.
And the next thing we will see is beastiality becomming[sic] normal.
It is normal and accepted. In Sweden. And in fact its on the rise over there.
Maybe sex is a choice a 14 year old can not make, because they don't have the maturity to understand what it means.
A mere century ago, the usual age for marraige in most cultures was 12 to 16. Can you explain to me what has changed from that time, besides the views of society?
If you know anything, most catholics register as democrats
Most catholics aren't American.
Maybe if sex is something sacred, then the divorce rate and infidelity would not be so high.
Oh get over yourself. Sex is just a physical activity, the very same as sports. You can play in a team or by yourself, and it releases very much the same hormones. If you mean loving relationships, then yes, perhaps that should be seen as being important. But what would you have us do, codify what exactly qualifies as sex and when people are allowed to have it? One size fits all may be the mantra of the modern corporate, shiny, market-segment and demographically organised world, but believe me the truth isn't that simple. And as for porn, who cares? It's more okay to show a man getting torn limb from limb by explosions than to watch paid professionals do their dance? And if you are whining about impressionable young minds, I suggest that parents take some responsibility for what their children get to see and hear, and stop depending on legislation to do their damn jobs for them. Christ.
You are making out that your apparently severely stunted worldview is the definitive version, and backing up your perspective by hurling accusations of paedophilia, which should be added to the godwins law lexicon of failures in debate. What a boob. Just another troll that knows how to burble a bit of fire and brimstone and get the mob riled up.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
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.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
"...although you failed to point out the basis of this article is that a democratic senator is pushing for this..."
Oh, sheesh, thank god... at least it will never pass then.
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
Which you were pretty much stood with how much money you made -- if you are rich or expect to be rich, vote republican. If you are poor, liberal, or know you aren't going to be rich, vote dem. The problem at this time is, the Republicans aren't *ACTING* like Republicans anymore (they used to stand for less taxes through less government and less debt, "the market will provide a solution"). The republicans have been taken over by these leech christian neocons (the neocon philosophy in one sentence is, "Might makes right.") who have driven the republicans control of all 3 branches of government, but who have completely sold out the principles of less government in favor for democrat like handouts, except the handouts are going to corporations and the wealthy. At least the new deal arguably helped the poor?
So long story short, is, if you believe in true republican ideals, right now you need to vote democrat.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
I think it's fair to say both the Democrats and the Republicans are at the forefront of censorship. Ashcroft had the Spirit of Justice statue covered up because of a boobie for example which also costed $8000 for the curtain at tax payers expense.
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.
Your argument is ridiculous. However, is also meandering so I'll have to refute it line by line:
:-) (a joke)...
"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
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
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
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.
Nothing religious about it. Simply a lack of belief.
Saying that atheism is a religion is precisely like saying a lack of belief in the healing power of pyramids is a religion.
It takes more than an atheist viewpoint to make a religion. Count on it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"So long story short, is, if you believe in true republican ideals, right now you need to vote democrat."
I used to vote democrat on occasion. I might again if they would stop trying to put me out of work. I used to have a good job in mining. The Democrats demonized that industry right out of the country, as far as I can tell, to provide high-quality low-cost vacations for the urban elite.
My current job depends on low-cost hydro-electric power, so what do the Democrats want now? To tear out the 4 dams on the lower Snake River and at least one on the Columbia, in order to "save the salmon" which are supposed to create a booming "eco-tourism industry". (Not just minimum wage, but seasonal minimum wage at that. Starve slowly for six months, quickly for the other six. What a deal!) That would raise electric rates enough to close down this job too. (Ironically, we make silicon for solar cells.)
So, once the democrats start saying people are more important than fish, trees,and so on, as well as stop nannying and otherwise trying to micromanage my life, I'll consider voting for them again.
Here's to Bill Proxmire, the last Democrat I voted for for a reason other than "lesser of two evils."