very cool article on proposed 25% tax

[basschick]

it's well worth reading the entire article - reading this warmed the cockles of my heart

"Senators seek Web porn tax

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.'"

But legal scholars who specialize in the First Amendment say courts have rejected similar taxes in the past--and are likely to do so again, if Lincoln's proposal becomes law.

"The general principle is that if you can't ban a certain category of expression, then you cannot selectively impose a tax on it," said Jamin Raskin, a professor of constitutional law at American University. "So if the speech that the senator is targeting is protected by the First Amendment, it may not be selectively taxed."

"The bottom line is, if it were constitutional to tax a disfavored category of speaker, then there would be 99 percent taxes on pornography and hate speakers and Howard Stern and so on," Raskin said. "But the courts understand that the power to tax ultimately is the power to destroy."

Jerome Barron, a former dean of George Washington University Law School who teaches First Amendment law, noted that the Supreme Court in 1936 rejected a 2 percent tax on newspapers with circulations of more than 20,000 copies a week.

"You can't use the taxation power as a weapon of censorship," Barron said.

A more recent Supreme Court case, Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, tossed out a Minnesota law taxing paper and ink products used by newspapers.

Lincoln's bill, called the Internet Safety and Child Protection Act of 2005, would apply only to adult sites subject to controversial record-keeping requirements regarding the identities of people participating in sex acts displayed on Web sites. Those sites must cough up the taxes and use age verification techniques "prior to the display of any pornographic material, including free content."

The Supreme Court has largely rebuffed Congress' previous attempts at Internet censorship. It rejected the Communications Decency Act's prohibition on "indecent" material, and upheld an injunction against the Child Online Protection Act, which targeted "harmful to minors" material online.

Other Senate sponsors of the legislation--all Democrats--include Thomas Carper of Delaware, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ken Salazar of Colorado, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Kent Conrad of North Dakota.

CNET News.com's Anne Broache contributed to this report."

http://news.com.com/Senators+seek+We...l?tag=nefd.top

[Matt D]

This law doesn't have a hope in Hades. Just finished looking it over...

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...1507is.txt.pdf

There are some serious problems with the way it defines "regulated pornographic web site." It seems this law would only apply to sites that need 2257 docs. Sites that only show vintage porn, simulated sex, and softcore full frontal nudity could sail through a Titanic-sized loophole.

But then it provides a definition of "pornography" that refers to 18 USC 2256 Sec. 2. This definition, it seems, would include simulated sex and nudity, even though 2257 does not. (2256 doesn't actually define "pornography;" it only defines "sexually explicit")

The free speech lawyers will have an easy time ripping this thing to shreds.

Also, the 25% tax would fund more than just child protection. They've earmarked part of the money for research grants for net filtering software. (Bet the folks at VerifyME will love that!) And some of the money will go to the Department of Agriculture, NASA, and other non-profit organizations.

It's a blatant money grab that won't stop children from accessing porn, and the revenue it generates will be spent on things that have nothing to do with its stated purpose.

[Paul Markham]

What amazes me about the kind of politicians, and they are all over the world, is are they stupid or do they thing the electorate are stupid.

1) This law is never going to get through and if Sen. Blanche Lincoln does not know that wehy is she a Senator?

2) Does she think the people in Arkansas who elected her are as stupid as her or she thinks they are just stupid and don't know about the Constitution?

3) Does she have a clue about how the Internet works? She can only impose taxes on US companies, hurt them and the non US sites will thank her. Maybe EU pornographers are bribing her. :mental:

4) By hurting the US pornographers the US will have less control over what is on the Internet.

Mind you she is Senator for Arkansas not reknown as a think tank State.

[tyrain]

Mind you she is Senator for Arkansas not reknown as a think tank State.

Do not forget that the USA had eight great years with President Clinton of Arkansas.

[collegeboyslive]

I hope someone is keeping count of these attacks on the industry, it may come in handy one day to show a continuing and deliberate attempt to get around 1st amemndment rights by the government