Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Senator Carper Calls for Tax on Online Porn

timothy posted more than 8 years ago | from the why-not-a-100%-tax-on-babykissers? dept.

Censorship 1145

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.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Don't let the state nany, take some responsibility (3, Insightful)

Ckwop (707653) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207111)

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.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207122)

They may be consenting adults, but the fact that they can consent to commit grosely immoral acts doesn't somehow make the acts okay.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (5, Insightful)

miketkrw (902851) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207181)

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.

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207213)

That's got to be the most insightful thing i've ever read

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (4, Insightful)

phoenix321 (734987) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207227)

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.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207132)

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.

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.

And another hint... you don't need to be Christian to be conservative. A lot of us just have some moral and ethical values.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (1)

mattdm (1931) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207157)

Another proof at how the left wing doesn't know what its extreme left wing is doing.

Or rather, a proof that much of the left wing hasn't realized how many democrats have sold out to the right in the guise of being "centrist".

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (4, Insightful)

grumpygrodyguy (603716) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207211)

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.

Liberty and pr0n for all. (1)

nukeade (583009) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207270)

You're forgetting that the Democrats have a patent on "unenforceable" or "pointless" laws. This is bipartisan legislation--it appeals to the right wing's morals and the left wing's pointlessness.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (1, Informative)

spikexyz (403776) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207137)

Sex is bad because it gives christians something to control. The thing they fear most is loosing control and if people start to doubt the central beliefs they have harped about for centeries, like sex is bad, as wrong as the belief might be, they might start to doubt the rest of the fairy tail and the christians will loose control.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (2)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207251)

Go ahead and get all you want. Just don't expect me to pay for your STD's and social programs. Oh, wait...

yuo are teh sux. (1)

Yr0 (224662) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207139)

Shut up tossface.

1) offshore
2)????
3) Profit!

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (5, Interesting)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207141)

The Christian faith (who's political wing is the Republican party)
Any idea what the (D-...) stands for in "Senator Tom Carper (D-Del)"

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207241)

It stands for "I't looks like the Republicans play dirty and I'm not getting re-elected so I'm changing parties".

If you don't believe me, just take a look at Texas and watch all of the Democratic districts disappear, because obviously if the majority of the people in a region voted Democratic, they aren't being properly represented.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (2, Insightful)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207265)

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.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207282)

I hate 'em both. The Republicans are on the right, and the Democrats are in the middle. There's no weight on the left side of the spectrum so it's completely out of whack.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (1)

Internet_Communist (592634) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207290)

sometimes I think the only difference between democrats and republicans at this point in time are the responses they give to abortion and gay marriage questions.

Of course, that's just their reponses. Their actions seem about the same...

or, to quote myself "The only difference between democrats and republicans are the excuses they give when they don't keep their promises"

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (1)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207293)

Any idea what the (D-...) stands for in "Senator Tom Carper (D-Del)"
The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is the name. Two sides of the same crap. US politics is a fantasy based on two nonexistent ideologies. You can choose between far-right and right.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207144)

Senator Tom Carper (D-Del)

Sex is natural (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207147)

hardcore porn gangbanging is not and creates a fake image of sex for children

Re:Sex is natural (3, Insightful)

phoenix321 (734987) | more than 8 years ago | (#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?

Church picnic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207303)

Best gangbang I ever attended was during a church picnic,at DeLeon Springs in Florida.We snuck off under the guise of wanting to hike the nature trails. :-)
  So before you go bashing us Christians, we like sex too.
The difference between us having it and you non-believers having it, is because you don't have God's permission, and we do.

Totally OT: Point of clarification (2, Insightful)

halivar (535827) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207149)

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. :)

Re:Totally OT: Point of clarification (2, Informative)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207232)

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.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (3, Interesting)

bbrack (842686) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207156)

Yet the senator who proposed the bill is a Democrat, who Christian groups rated as voting 16% pro-family...

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207168)

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.

But a child visiting hardcore pron sites is nothing like seeing a couple on the couch. Totally different things.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (-1, Troll)

ChillyWillie (887514) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207177)

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.
Perhaps it's because 3 black dudes doing an asian chick at the same time and dropping their loads in her eye might give the wrong impression of what it's all about. I can't speak for you, but I don't partake in interracial gangbangs, facials, or S&M. If you consider that "normal" maybe you should see a therapist.

What do I think about this? I can't see how a tax could possibly do anything except make politicians justify keeping porn around longer since they are now financially benefitting from the adult industry.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207190)

You forgot the she-male midget with the large wang... it comes in at half-time.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (2, Insightful)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207188)

Because Simple Sex is not all that's on the web.
violent sex, sex with animals, gang bangs, rapes, child pornography, etc.
I don't mind if my kids (one day) look at playboys, or even penthouse, but I sure as hell don't want them finding that kind of fucked up stuff at an age where it might effect them.

Personally, I think they should require the .xxx domain for any site above basic nudity, just to make things simple, but what do I know, I'm not a senator.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (2, Informative)

Internet_Communist (592634) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207246)

I propose we show kids goatse as young as possible to negate this effect.

Seriously if your kid is trying to get a hold of porn whether or not it's "violent sex, sex with animals, gang bangs, rapes, child pornography, etc." they've already past that supposed age anyway. Well, unless someones forcing them to watch it in which case you have a little more to worry about.

What age might this effect them at anyway? If someone showed me something like that at a real young age I'd have had no idea what it was. By the time I was 8 it would have just gotten an "eww" at the most.

require XXX domains? and what about all the other methods to get porn irrelevant to websites? If a kids looking for porn in the first place there's no point of trying to further censor sex from them, they're past that breaking point.

I swear if I see one more parent stuck in this whole "child innocence" delusion I'm going to go on a killing spree. Get over it, your kid will be the same dirty old sexual beast that you are one day.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (1)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207257)

"Personally, I think they should require the .xxx domain for any site above basic nudity, just to make things simple, but what do I know, I'm not a senator."

Who is "they"? Team America World Police?

If you don't like whats on the internet, don't give your child unmonitored access. What should really be policed is porn site squatters (and any other too) as that can easily be done by ICANN, no requirement to create some special govt entitity, just let the people responsible for dns take care of it and if another country doesnt like it, they can run their own roots. Even thats scary though, who decieds what constitutes removal, and how can we tell that it was rightful?

Or just do nothing, its worked fine for the rest of us. The type of people deliberately putting fucked-up-porn where someone would accidently find it (eg, typosquatters) are not the type that would comply with being forced into a tld that would become filtered by everyone cutting their profits. The type of site that would clearly label/not misadvertise their genre of porn is the type that your kid would have to actively look for, and if your kids trying to find pictures of a girl fucking a horse, actually seeing it isnt going to change anything.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207310)

Ya, I'm going to take a post from a guy called "irc.goatese.cx troll" seriously.
Yes, I want Team America damn it!

And who the fuck will be able to get by in school without internet access now?
Worked for the rest of us? I had to wait 30 minutes for my 386 to bring up a simple naked picture. Kids can now find gang-bang movies by ACCIDENT. That's a large difference I'd say. If my kids wants porn, no problem, but I don't want him stumbling onto it by misstyping telletubbies.com, can we all agree on that at least?

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (1)

TykeClone (668449) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207260)

Personally, I think they should require the .xxx domain for any site above basic nudity, just to make things simple, but what do I know, I'm not a senator.

Well, it's obvious you're not a senator - you just gave a simple, straightforward answer to a problem that won't go out of its way to hassle those who do not serve porn. I think that kind of a response is against a senate rule.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207217)

It's abvious that you lack any sence of morals. I was exposed to porn at a very very VERY early age, and not buy anyone - I just found it at my uncles house. Throught the years of willfully exposing myself I can tell you it HAS effected my relationship with my wife. Do you have any idea what it is like to love someone and constatnly compairing them to the air brushed perfect models you see in those pages? You won't because 1. you lack morals, 2. you've bought into the "do it because it feels good". Not all christians feel that sex is bad, when it's kept within the confines or MARRAGE, between to people, not a public spectial.

Parent is flaimbait (-1, Flamebait)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207222)

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

You are an idiot. What does on-line porn and "two people who like each other a lot" have in common? Have you seen on-line porn? It sucks. Wham, bam, thank you mam, here is your $150. Porn is nothing like a loving relationship. And for you to say it is okay for a child to watch it, that makes you a pedophile. You belong in jail, or at the very least, to be registered with a sex offender database. You want children to watch porn, how sick are you??

The Christian faith (who's political wing is the Republican party)

That is B.S.. If you know anything, most catholics register as democrats. Maybe the baptists are more republican. But as a group, they don't vote for just one side or the other. Or are you talking about lutherans?

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.

Maybe sex is something that should be nervous and new and wonderful when you meet the one person who you want to be with forever. Maybe sex is a choice a 14 year old can not make, because they don't have the maturity to understand what it means. Maybe if sex is something sacred, then the divorce rate and infidelity would not be so high.

You are what is wrong with this world.

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.

And the next thing we will see is beastiality becomming normal. Maybe one day HBO will air "Farm Diaries". After all, the person is free to make a choice, even if everyone else says it is wrong. That is what you are saying.

I hope that this is a joke. (1)

nukeade (583009) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207229)

(+1 Funny)

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Sorry, Ive got to say this... (1)

SeekerDarksteel (896422) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207230)

the people who are gay or have abortions are consenting adults and are fully aware of the consequences of their actions.

Err...the innocent kid that's being killed is hardly a consenting adult.

Woo, -1 Flamebait!

No, but seriously...the debate is not, nor has it ever been about whether or not women have the right to do what they want with their bodies anymore than it is about whether God claims it is evil or not. The ONLY debate that has any significance at all is whether or not an embry/fetus between the moment of conception and whatever month they've arbitrarily decided is not worthy of legally protected status like all other human beings are. The claim that the controversy of abortion is about a woman's right to choose is propoganda is only put out so that anyone who opposes abortion, for whatever reason, can be labelled as wanting to take away someone's rights when the reality is that the core reason pro-lifers oppose abortion is to protect a human's rights.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (1)

Prophetic_Truth (822032) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207233)

um RTFA will ya?

Senator Tom Carper (D-Del) is calling for a 25% tax on all internet pornograpy

So I guess we're suspose to take your whole rant and replace Republican with Democrat?

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (1)

AutopsyReport (856852) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207239)

Why would a child seeing two consenting adults having sex "corrupt" them

It's not so simple. Almost every type of porn degrades women in some fashion:

Either the woman is doing all the work;
She is being subjected to things the guy wouldn't be subjected to if he had the choice;
They are treated not as sub-human, but as objects of value -- value in the sense of sexual gratification;
Men get used to seeing the women do everything the man wants, on command, and this can carry over into their own sexual encounters, and;
Porn is traditionally the blond, busty female; how do redheads feel when they know their boyfriend is watching a stacked blond?

There's a lot more problems with pornography, but those came off the top of my head. Pornography is a dangerous road, especially for men who can become addicted to visuals.

I've been a pornography addict for almost ten years. Only in the last couple months have I really started to break free from it (and it feels damn good). I don't treat women like objects, I don't expect women to act like the women I see in porn, but I can admit I've asked for my girlfriend to do things I never would have thought of before.

Maybe I got off lucky, but I know for damn sure that I've been affected by all the porn I viewed. Simple images or not, it sticks with you, and blurs your interpretation of what sex should be, and how sacred a woman is.

Something that shouldn't be cencored is nudity. Something that should always be cencored is pornography.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (0, Flamebait)

Linus Torvaalds (876626) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207294)

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.

One of the best ways to stop somebody stupid asking for something stupid is to let them have literally what they are asking for.

Want to tax smut? That'll be 25% extra added to every bible sold then.

Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207300)

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


oh no, the democrats dont do this at all **cough cough** gun ban **cough cough**

Or how does this [workingforchange.com] strike you?

"I know it when I see it" is all very well but... (4, Interesting)

James Youngman (3732) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207125)

Aren't there constitutional issues here? It seems odd to have a situation where the IRS decides what is and what isn't pornography.

Re:"I know it when I see it" is all very well but. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207171)

Yes, this is a law that affects otherwise legal communication according to its content. IANAL, but I suspect it would be unconstitutional.

Ha! (4, Funny)

Uber Banker (655221) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207126)

They could tax Empornium [empornium.us] for 100% and it will still be free!

Re:Ha! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207243)

Do people pay for porn online?

If pictures of naked people are to be taxed, then I purpose that only those who are violating their churches' basically-held principles in viewing the pictures be forced to pay the tax.

Re:Ha! (2, Funny)

myslashdotusername (903486) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207306)

If pictures of naked people are to be taxed, then I purpose that only those who are violating their churches' basically-held principles in viewing the pictures be forced to pay the tax./I

If Someone were to overpay said tax, I guess you'd call that a sintax error.

We all know how politicians work... (2, Funny)

DaveM753 (844913) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207129)

He's just voting to increase his own taxes.

Re:We all know how politicians work... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207253)

Let's see, taxes on liquor, beer, cigarettes, other tobacco products, gambling, etc. all seek to hinder the consumption of these sinful items.
I say they don't stop that, only re-arrange the
ones who are able to buy these items.
Governments tax these items because it is a sure thing, and will never go away as a tax base. Wouldn't it be a suprise if the tax on cigarettes was "too much" and almost everyone stopped smoking? There will always be someone, and lots of someones who can pay for the items taxed, tax and all. Only the poor complain, now they have to pay an extra dollar on some crap they "need".
Now on to gasoline:
The "over $2.00 a gallon" prices has not stopped the public from swarming over the roads. Part of this is the tax, but not as much as it once was.
We'll see. Perhaps $3.00 a gallon will suddenly stop the vast traffic jams that are now commonplace, because everyone is driving around.
I doubt it. Only the ones doing the driving are changed. A few poor bastards at the bottom of the totem pole are having to rearrange their spending, and are doing a little less driving around, so those cartons of taxed cigarettes can be purchased. That's how the government works, all governments that tax the population. Nothing is ever taxed into oblivion, then it would be a bad tax. A good tax gets collected, day in and day out. The public is condemned because these taxes are "necessary" to curb consumption. I say the government is to be condemned for taxing the poor in a greater ratio than the rich. Gas could be $10.00 a gallon, and the rich would continue to consume at their current rate. Not the same ones, mind you, but those "rich" who take the place of the "rich" that suddenly find themselves "not-so-rich-after-all".

It's (almost) all in that proposal! (4, Funny)

DoktorTomoe (643004) | more than 8 years ago | (#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...

Re:It's (almost) all in that proposal! (1)

jackofallbrandnames (881785) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207173)

He forgot terrorists, tought...

That's because he's a Democrat.

Re:It's (almost) all in that proposal! (1)

Linus Torvaalds (876626) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207308)

He's just playing Politician Bingo.

Cute Trick (5, Insightful)

Rob Carr (780861) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207131)

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!

That's Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207135)

What we REALLY need is a tax on congressional BULLSHIT -- then we'd be ROLLING IN THE DOUGH!

Wait a second... (0)

umdk1d3 (899910) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207140)

Wait a second... people actually pay for porn?

Re:Wait a second... (1)

DaveM753 (844913) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207165)

Of course: Somebody has to scan it and post it to USENET.

Re:Wait a second... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207258)

Recently posted screenshots on a adult webmaster forum:

http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/6449/stats8hx.jpg [imageshack.us]
(for an iFriends.com affiliate)

http://img336.imageshack.us/img336/2448/cams3ff.jp g [imageshack.us]
(for EpicCams.com site)

So I guess people do pay for porn, just like some pay for music and DVDs rather than steal.

How does (3, Interesting)

Tagren (715283) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207143)

generic porno relate to child-abuse anymore than indy-500 to bank robbery escape with a car?

ThinkGeek better watch out... (4, Funny)

Message Board (695681) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207145)

A 25% tax on what the government calls pornography [thinkgeek.com] might impact sales. Be afraid, thinkgeek - you and your action shots.

For some Perverts, a Sears Catalog is porn (1)

putko (753330) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207150)

A lot of typical catalogs are porn for real perverts . Even diaper ads are porn for pedophiles.

For trisexuals, a car ad would be the ticket.

There's going to be a lot of tax revenue if this guy gets what he wants.

Re:For some Perverts, a Sears Catalog is porn (1)

PainBot (844233) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207312)

Trisexuals ? Huh ?

Who decides? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#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? (1)

Virak (897071) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207195)

And then there's the trouble of actually finding the servers, as it's easy to make a web site invisible. And what about free porn? 25% of nothing is still nothing.

Re:Who decides? (3, Interesting)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207245)

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.

Thank goodness (2, Funny)

abrotman (323016) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207155)

It's about time our elected officials started paying taxes.

Tax or Censorship? (2, Insightful)

VeryLongNumber (903828) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207162)

So what does he want - tax or censorship?

The twisted logic of this is that he claims either instituting a tax would enforce the laws, or porn sites somehow encourage child pornography.

In other words, he really wants censorship without saying the bad "C word".

I hope all the porn sites move overseas (2, Insightful)

putko (753330) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207164)

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.

Re:I hope all the porn sites move overseas (1)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207304)

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.

Then government can charge terrifs. Government has for a long time charged taxes on products imported. What is the difference with a web service? Governments can pass a law saying that web services will have a terrif. If the web service does not originate in the USA, then a terrif must be paid. I am sure that most nations would not want to be humiliated by having their nation blacklisted, so no websites can be viewed inside the USA. Just imagine Bush visiting Russia and telling Putin "sorry, we have to block any web content from your country because you are a haven for porn".

Government can do all sorts of things. They can tell banks it is illegal to transfer money to a country. Look at what the USA is doing to cuba. No american, or anybody for that fact, can use a credit card issued by an american bank in Cuba. The american bank will deny the transaction no matter how much money you have.

And the USA can pressure other countries to make laws that collect taxes. For example, if Bush wanted to control the amount of porn that Russia sends to the USA, Putin could be told "we won't approve these IMF loans your country needs unless you rewrite your web tax laws". Even the carrot can be used, the stick might not be needed. Bush can say "Putin, this is a billion dollar industry, don't you want to tax it?".

The point is those places in the world where people move to set up web services that are illegal in the USA, it would not be too hard to shut them down, and often the USA would not have to do it, we can just pressure the other country to do it for us.

The only reason the USA does not have laws going after offshore casinos is because polticians have not figured out it can generate votes. Just imagine a politician who says "I want to stop the terrorists from using american money that was generated by mob run casinos in the Caymen Islands. My opponent did nothing to stop this illegal gambling racket in the last 4 years in office. Why? Why didn't you do anything?"

Stopping porn from being viewed by children is something that most people would support. I would say over 90%, republicans and democrats. And most would not loose any sleep if it was taxed just like other vices, like cigarettes or alcohol. They have always been taxed higher than other items.

Isn't it obvious... (2, Insightful)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207166)

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?

They should keep kids away from violence (4, Interesting)

Snaller (147050) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207169)

Not sex....

Re:They should keep kids away from violence (1)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207203)

Exactly. Only without the part about keeping them away from violence. Just keep them away from power tools and they'll be fine.

Porn -- Pedo (2, Insightful)

baadger (764884) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Great! (2, Insightful)

Killshot (724273) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207172)

I don't think we pay enough taxes... we need to pay more taxes on everything!

This is ridiculous... (3, Interesting)

William Robinson (875390) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

age-verification software (3, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

why are so many in this country scared by boobies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207182)

seriously???!!! do they wear bathingsuits when taking a morning shower?

Offshore (2, Insightful)

ThreeDayMonk (673466) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207186)

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.

Nevada ranches WANT to be taxed... (4, Insightful)

weave (48069) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207191)

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.

Re:Nevada ranches WANT to be taxed... (1)

baadger (764884) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207218)

Nevada already recognises prostitution as an occupation, they need a state issued license and they pay tax on their income. (You probably know all this.)

However I don't see how they can introduce a tax on fairly low key ranches in the middle of nowhere, that people goto willingly, in the name protect "the children" or for any moral reason.

Keep Porn Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207192)

Never paid for porn yet and I've 30Gb of the stuff.

Free and amateur porn? (1)

baadger (764884) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207196)

Some people have poked at a good point that needs threading.

How will this taxation work for free and amateur/voyeur (people exchanging footage via forums etc (I know of a few)) pornography?

How can the government stop people from putting up their own kinky videos for free?

Re:Free and amateur porn? (1)

Gonoff (88518) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207261)

25% of free is zero. Presuambly it is commercial porn that is being targeted here.

Enthusiastic amateurs who do it for free do not seem endangered - YET.

In the beginning Porn created... (1)

transami (202700) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207198)

Looks like some congressmen have finally figured out the modern universalism that porn kick starts all mediums. Looks like that might include online taxes too. Makrk my words, if this passes it's but the first step to a general internet sales tax.

Of course.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207199)

...slahdot folks, full of porn addicts, gets mad for anything which would lessen pornography.

For those who think porn is ok: what would you think if your daughter was a porn star? ok, if you don't have kids, what about your mother?

Taxes (4, Insightful)

psychofox (92356) | more than 8 years ago | (#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!!!

Support trolling. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207221)

Carper is just trolling for support - is it election season or something? "To fight child pornography", "To keep kids from viewing online porn". Bunch of reasons, but at least he's trying to save the common factor here: the poor impressionable children.

Pretty Easy Fix (1)

sjlutz (540312) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207228)

Pretty easy fix for this
Dear Customer, thank you for purchasing 200 mb's of storage on our systems. YOu price per month is $19.95. Feel free to browse our extensive collection of free materials and save them to your storage area.

The logic here... (3, Insightful)

larien (5608) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207242)

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...

Re:The logic here... (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207302)

And nobody will dare oppose the bill for fear of appearing to support child porn.

Huh? (1)

MisterTeabag (664494) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207244)

Wait... people *pay* for online porn?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207276)

Not ME! I get it all free from usenet which comes bundled with my internet service from verizon. Go figure, eh?

The government started taxing porn..... (3, Funny)

gristlebud (638970) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207256)

and the government's debt was wiped out in 2 months.

Becuase Slashdot Editors Are Cowards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207263)

We can now confirm that the DVD that was included with the Developer Transition Kits has leaked and has been placed on a major torrent site with the name of "Apple.OS.X.x86.Developer.Kit.Install.DVD-pheNIX." According to sources, the DVD image is in .dmg format and an NFO was included. Of course, we can only assume that this DVD will not immediately be ready to install on x86 machines, as it still incorporates SSE3 and the TPM. http://www.osx86.classicbeta.com/wiki/index.php/Ma in_Page/ [classicbeta.com] Source [classicbeta.com]

Let's just tax everything!!!! (2, Insightful)

onetrueking (413507) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207283)

Let's tax bread. And sugar. And books. And trips. And cars. And computers. And drinks. And smokes. And CD's. And profits. And losses. And houses. And gas. And clothes. And jewelry. And business.

Let's tax life. And honor. And Commitment. And betrayal. And health. And happiness. And sadness. And depression. And intent. And thoughts. And air. And the sun. And the sky. And death.

Let's bloody tax everything!!

This proposal is utter bollocks. (1)

HugePedlar (900427) | more than 8 years ago | (#13207286)

It is totally unenforceable and for that matter wou...

What? What do you mean I owe you $0.25? All I said was "bollo..."

Damn! $0.50!! For fuck's sake!

ARGH!!

The list goes on and on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13207292)

Senator Carper calls for getting laid.

Great Idea! (5, Insightful)

Winkhorst (743546) | more than 8 years ago | (#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!

I think everyone is missing the point (5, Insightful)

ballantrae (586683) | more than 8 years ago | (#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
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?