I highly suspect that you are correct on both points...but some people seem to cater to the "sky is falling" syndrome.

There is far to much truth to your post.

Restaurants are levied a special tax not levied on other businesses in many jourisdictions, casinos are almost always are. Taxation in our country is not equal, let alone consistent.

I live here. I can vouch there is truth in that statement. :helpme

You are correct.

maybe you will consider doing so when you make more than 25$ a month.

Bush is a pornstar!

cartoons, horoscopes, personals, opinion pages. none of those are news

Thank you for pointing out the obvious...but I personally do not expect newspapers to be classified as an entertainment service and taxed as such...anytime soon. Do you?

Listen Bringer, I already agreed with you once in another thread .. .and now you force me to agree a second time in the same week ????

This hurts you know :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

What's funny about TheKing ( aside that he is a gov cocksucking sheep) is that this tax has no influence on him...

25% or 50% or even 90% of 0.00 income is ZERO!

:2 cents:

And if they made billions you can bet some polititian would be going after their chunk of it :upsidedow

i was simply pointing out the parts that might put papers into the entertainment section. who knows if it'll happen. i never expected walmart or any other asshole with money who likes my ocean view to cherry pick my property and have my local government force me to move so we'll just wait and see what our non elected leaders force down our throats. unpopular speach is often mislabeled in attempts to squash it. please dont reply to this post, i know you disagree and i really dont care.

the sky is falling

In reference to newspapers being taxed - they would be protected under the 1st amendment of freedom of press and this has been upheld many times.
The supreme court has struck down a law which imposed a special tax on large newspapers, Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue,460 U.S. 575 (1983) , and a law which imposed a tax on some magazines but not others based on their subject matter, Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221 (1987)

I will ignore your request and reply anyhow. I cannot see anything in the post that I disagree with.

FYI...I disagree with much...if not most...of what government does...be it local City Government...County Government...State Government...or Federal Government.

As for the rest of your post...like most of your posts...pig shit.

BTW...my biggest bones to pick have usually been with City and County government as I used to have properties and City and County goverment effect properties. I kind of miss the City and County "wars".

I'm curious if this will apply to both a 25% tax on the profit made by an affiliate making a sale on their end plus a 25% tax on the income received by the paysite.

:/

This as with many of the other changes going on right now in the adult industry were totally predictable.

:pimp

Big differecene. None of those are speech.

Still, the taxes you list have nothing to do with free speech. Porn is speech, whether it's offensive to some people or not.

Bottom Line: Government Greed... with Child Protecton as justification (for doing it).

When this gets in front of your regular Legislative MORNs all they see is Child Protecton and they compleetly ingnore the legal system (created by them) has been completly INCOMPETENT in keeping KNOWN Child Predators from killing children again and again.

I live in Florida... children abducted every week here and often killed... and that's just the ones that are found. Most are probably dead and never found. Point being, if they are unwilling to stop Convicted Child Predators (by not releasing them from jail)... why should we believe that they can protect children from a resource as abundant and as easly accessable as the Internet.

You blindly follow Fox.

The exceptions you list are just ones that you heard on Fox. You only disagree with the government when Fox says it's ok.

Try thinking for yourself for a change!

100?

The taxes I listed were to show that our system of taxation is neither equal nor consistent.

Please show me any regulation that says the govenment cannot tax a for profit industry, even if some would say it's not entertainment or a service, but free speech.

Would you like to explain that to me? I guess Im too close minded to understand it???

Lets see - definition of racist - to make derogatory remarks about one group of people
definition of close-minded - doesn't recognize the fact that other people have opinions

Interesting Reads
 

Senator Santorum's view on Freedom of Speech:

"But you may have noticed that in pornography the words aren?t really the point, are they? ?Speech? implies words, rationally intelligible discussion and argument, communication. Pictures also can be ?worth a thousand words,? of course: Sometimes images are central to a political or social cause. But America?s huge porn industry is not about political debate; it is not about the communication of ideas. It?s about the commercial production of objects of titillation for profit. Based on the text of the Constitution, the courts should have recognized a hierarchy of protected ?speech,? with political speech and writing receiving the greatest constitutional protection, commercial speech less protection, and mere titillation the least of all."

For full article, visit:

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0507210812.asp

Also, did you know that the Catholic Church keeps secret archives in each diocese? It is required by Cannon Law and records "matters of morals."

Read more about the secret inworkings of the Catholic Church at:

http://www.snapnetwork.org/Special_i...on%20Paper.pdf

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Look up the word "abridge".

Make it simple. Would it be constitutional to tax only hip-hop music?

Porn is free speech...serving up porn for sale is not free speech it is a for sale service...entertainment service.

You do realize that the relgious right make ZERO distinction between CP and regular porn and consider us and pedophiles one in the same. Also many in the religious right consider us MORE of a threat to American society than terrorists. I don't agree with the KKK but I sure as hell back their right to say what they want. that's the thing about freedom, if you want your own sometimes you have to defend someone elses you may not like. Picking and choosing WHICH people get to have rights and which one don't deseve them is a dangerous thing. So just be thankful the ACLU is there trying to protect your ass because they'll end up doing more for you than the stupid FSC ever will. I don't see the FSC making any comments on this either.

Pig shit. C-Span is my primary source of news...as I prefer my news from the "horses mouth". My thinking is mine after having weighed the pros and cons...thankyou very much. Now feel free to :321GFY

Book publishers have no free speech protection? You believe it would be constitutional to add a 25% tax to any book publisher who publishes books that are critical of Bill Clinton?

:1orglaugh

GatorB,
see my posts of #53, 79, and 104.

When something is for sale it is not free speech...it is a for sale service...entertainment service.

Based on the text of the constitution? :1orglaugh

The constitution makes no distinction on the type of speech. It wouldn't be free speech if the government could decide which speech was protected and which was not.

He should move to Saudi Arabia.

All a tax will do is push companies to work overseas or offshore. It reminds me a lot of the online casino laws. Laws and taxes forced them offshore, and cost the government tax dollars they could have made from sponsors.

It's another stupid law and it will probably go through.

Books, movies, music, TV, radio, and art are not free speech?

http://www.starland.com/sf-sc/sf03/i...b%20People.JPG

Of course they are and all pay taxes and some pay special taxes and all are subject to special taxes...just as the so called "sin taxes" that have been levied on certain products...and special zoning taxes that have been levied against strip clubs...adult stores...and even night clubs. As one pointed out taxes are not equal and with consistency.

This bill will probably die in committee...if it ever becomes law...the Supreme Court will decide the constitutionallity of it...end of story.

The government...city...county...state....and federal has many and multiple impositions against total free speech. Combative speech is against the law in most jurisdictions...as is hate speech...traitorious speech...certain speech in advertisements...speech on the airways...etc. etc.

Bottom line...government can and does control limitations on free speech...and always has.

He specifically says "based on the text of the constitution", which does not make exceptions for speech that people don't like.

People like Santorum want the United States to be like Saudi Arabia and Cuba, where all speech has to be approved by the government or it is illegal.

I know what he said and I know what you said.

" It wouldn't be free speech if the government could decide which speech was protected and which was not."

And I pointed out to you that the government...city...county...state...and federal can and do control limitations on free speech.

I don't know who said the quote; but, I like it:

"You don't live in a free country if you are never offended."

How is taxing porn prohibiting or curtailing it? It's not, no more than you could say that a restaurant tax prohibits food.

Hey, I fully believe that adults should be able to look at any porn they want to (featuring conscenting adults only), I'm just stating how the current government looks xcept CP & beastialityat it, don't forget we have an Attorney General who has gone on record saying that obscenity is not protected speech. As wrong as that may seem, that is the current situation.