25% PORN EXCISE TAX??? IS THIS FOR REAL?

[LindaMight]

Just read this at XBiz.....is this for real??? Could this really pass??

""WASHINGTON — The online adult industry faces another regulatory assault tomorrow when Sen. Blanche Lincoln rolls out proposed federal legislation that would impose a 25 percent excise tax for all adult transactions.
The Democratic-led bill also would establish a child protection trust fund financed by the excise tax and place new requirements for age verification on websites and billing companies.

A press conference is scheduled for 11 a.m. (EST) Wednesday to introduce the proposed Internet Safety and Child Protection Act, which coincides with the release of a new report on the online adult business by Third Way, a think tank and advocacy group.

Lincoln, in a release obtained by XBiz, said her legislation would help relieve the anxieties experienced by families due to the lack of controls they have over what their children view online.

She also said that it is time the costs of protecting children online shift from the American taxpayer to the actual purveyors of online porn.

Lincoln plans to make the Wednesday announcement with supporting Sens. Tom Carper, D-Del.; Mark Pryor, D-Ark; Mary Landrieu, D-La.; Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.; Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.; and Ken Salazar, D-Colo.; as well as Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah and Rep. Robert Menendez, D-N.J. ""

Again I say....THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO START A PAY SITE! Wait until we get some Democrats in office.....geez. |shocking|

Linda

[Jeka]

|shocking|

Damn that would suck-a-lot

[LindaMight]

DANG...I mis-read the bottom of the news...THESE ARE DEMOCRATS! WHISKEY-TANGO-FOXTROT??

Linda

[terry]

And look at that... a trust fund for child protection. my question is exactly how much of that 25% would actually go into this fund? This is crazy.. but wont stop me from releasing another site

[GunnCat]

Didn't we cover this last week?

http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...ad.php?t=22165

[Linkster]

Not only did we cover it - realize these bills get brought up every 3 months - unfortunately some WM "news" organizations are playing with peoples' fears right now for traffic generation and are exploiting every little tidbit for all its worth
If congress would ever actually vote one of these things into law - which they havent the last 12 times - that would give full justification to porn as a viable entity in the US - and I guarantee that no congressman that wants to get reelected would ever do that

[Erick G]

I find it funny that the most violent game on the market makes no news
but as soon as "sex" is involved they go ape shit.. I rather have my kids jackin off then doing drive by's.. Is sex really really that bad? Last time I checked, sex was a natural thing..
killing ho's n shit isnt so natural.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Erick G

killing ho's n shit isnt so natural.

Depends on the ho...

[Erick G]

I knew it! damn you!
LOL

[tickler]

Originally Posted by Linkster

If congress would ever actually vote one of these things into law - which they havent the last 12 times..

From reading a few other articles, it would be considered a tax on free speech, whick just ain't allowed.

Originally Posted by Linkster

...that would give full justification to porn as a viable entity in the US - and I guarantee that no congressman that wants to get reelected would ever do that

Yeah, but could you imagine a Republican having to go back to the bible thumpers and explain why he voted against a porn bill.

[Linkster]

Well - actually I can imagine it - like I said no congressman wants to legitimize porn by making it taxable - that would be worse
What normally happens is these bills get introduced to a committee first - they get shelved there - they never even make it to the floor of the house for a vote so no one has to vote yes or no. At least thats what happened with the last one
Secondly - the fre speech part - it's already been proven that you can tax businesses online - not for the content but the revenue - but that part doesnt matter - again these bills always die before they get voted on and the other part of the bill that has to do with warning pages has already been shot down by the supreme court (called the CDA)

[Fonz]

|skyfall| again?

[madleinx]

I agree with Linkster - not gonna happen.

Though I am rather disturbed to see my senator on that little list. I even voted for the bitch. Her opponent was much much worse, but still....Shame on you Mary!

[LindaMight]

Sorry if this was aleady brought up. But I did not see the thread. Shame on me.

[SirMoby]

I think the dems are trying to get some publicity and gain votes from the religeous conservatives. I don't think they want to tax freedom of speech.

However, such a trust would be a cash cow for those that manage it. It would never help protect children in any way but it would be huge pork.

[Linkster]

Actually - the democrats that are involved are trying to get attention for their "third party" concept - a new political party called the "progressives". The "think tank" that prepared the report is the group that is behind this progressive party campaign.

Interesting to note that the Senate has a bill on their docket that extends the moratorium for any internet taxes for another two years to 2007

[RawAlex]

The proposed tax bill also includes some things that have been invalidated by the courts any number of times already (see COPA, COPAII):

Originally Posted by AVNONLINE

The draft bill not only sought to fund its own enforcement and other child-protection efforts by levying a 25-percent tax on all Internet pornography transactions, but also mandated that “regulated pornographic websites” use “software certified for that purpose” to verify all users attempting to access the sites are 18 years of age or older. Although the concept of certified age-verification software was left undefined in the draft legislation, a “regulated pornographic website” was defined as “a person required to maintain documents verifying the age of persons engaged in sexually explicit conduct pursuant to section 2257(a) of title 18, United States Code.”

The entire "restricted access" issue has been pushed around any number of times, and fails every time.

As a side note, I think if you look at most of the recent "anti-porn" laws that have either been passed or floated, you will see that they are intentionally including wording and / or concepts that have been shot down in court.

I have a theory on this: They know that the laws will be invalid on their face. They know that the wording as proposed would never stand up in court. The intention isn't to regulate our industry, it is to look good for voters that "you tried something but them damn courts cut us down". The law makers look good with their more conservative voters, and they don't get the backlash of the more liberal voters who want to see porn.

Why else would the new DOJ regulation include, to the word, regulations that were already shot down in Reno v. Sundance? More importantly, it is the words that the court specifically used to shoot reno down.

Why else did Ashcroft take COPAII back into court for another run rather than work on a new bill? It isn't about willing the "war on porn", it's about appearing to be doing something while in fact doing nothing, and tying us all up in legal knots while they are doing it.

Alex

[LindaMight]

I have to tell you I about fell over this evening when I cruised past the TV and the 6:00 news was on. And right out in front of my local news...(near Washington, DC), was the PROTECT THE CHILDREN FROM PORN Democrats and why the 25% tax and proof of age is so important for all adult websites. Someone, (didn't catch the name) mentioned that if they could not shut down internet pornography ....they will do the next best thing and make it very hard on the webmasters. There was some poll from a parental control software company that said 70% of internet porn surfers are children....(uh hello..where are the parents here?) .This is the first time I've seen anything on the news about any of the crap that adult sites deals with.

goood ol polls....

Linda