good article on porn tax washington post - GoFuckYourself.com

tony286 · 08-01-2005, 11:02 AM

Taxing Internet Porn

By Robert MacMillan
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Monday, August 1, 2005; 8:39 AM

I'm no free-market libertarian. You'll never hear me argue against a healthy dose of regulation if it helps consumers without stopping businesses from turning a profit.

Almost never.

A group of Democratic senators last week introduced a bill that would slap a 25 percent tax on Internet pornography sites to pay for a trust fund to "protect" children online. I'm sure they think this is a great idea, but as for me, I'm hoping it will end up at the back of the Senate parliamentarian's filing cabinet under the spare coffee filters.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported on the proposal: "'Our children can literally stumble into adult Web sites that are inappropriate for their viewing,' said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who joined eight Democratic colleagues in introducing the Internet Safety and Child Protection Act of 2005. 'As parents, it is our responsibility to protect our children -- and no longer does protecting our children mean only holding their hand while crossing the street.'"

The problem, according to the bill's sponsor, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) is that the Internet porn industry brings in $12 billion in annual revenues (think ABC + NBC + CBS, the Times-Picayune said) from 420 million Web pages frequented primarily by children aged 12 to 17.

"Lincoln said software is available that can help Web operators keep children away from viewing inappropriate material, but only 3 percent use them. Most only require a child to 'check off' a statement asserting that they are 18 or older, she said," the newspaper reported.

Strangely enough, Lincoln's Web site doesn't contain a single press release or statement from 2005. For some official touting of the bill, see cosponsor Sen. Debbie Stabenow's (Mich.) site . Other cosponsors include Sens. Kent Conrad (N.D.), Tom Carper (Del.), Joseph Lieberman (Conn.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Ken Salazar (Colo.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.). Democratic Reps. Jim Matheson (Utah) and Robert Menendez (N.J.) introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives.

The Bayou Buzz Web site noted that the bill was prompted by a report sponsored by The Third Way , which writer Steve Sabludowski described as a "a growing political organization, designed to energize the progressive base and end the partisan bickering that has overcome the United States. It has recently begun the New South Project, which is an effort to address the growing alienation of mainstream southerners from progressive ideas, leaders and groups. The New South Project is chaired by Sens. Landrieu and Mark Pryor, D-Ark."

In other words, the idea is to raise more southern voter support for conservative-sounding policies that any good Democrat can back. What a relief! For a moment I thought that their primary purpose was to save the children.

The Associated Press carried some expert commentary: "Tim Richardson, an Internet commerce professor at Seneca College in Toronto, said the actual number of pornographic Web pages is impossible to confirm because they are so often duplicated to force Internet search engines to list them more prominently. But he said the growth has been astronomical because the pornography industry knows how to use technology to stay one step ahead of popular government regulations. 'The whole launching of the porn industry in the 1980s was tied to the VCR and the ability to watch XXX movies in your own home,' Richardson said. 'There are precedents to how the porn industry has exploited technology, so the Internet is nothing new.'"

The Times-Picayune and the AP quoted Tom Hymes of the Free Speech Coalition for the porn industry's spin. "The report says 12- to 17-year-olds are the top consumers of Internet pornography, based on older studies that found adult Web sites make their money based mainly on how many visitors they attract. Hymes said that business model didn't work and was ditched by most Web sites around 2001," the AP wrote. "'This is completely offensive to this industry because it has matured over the last couple years. It is not interested in children coming to Web sites anymore,' Hymes said. 'We want verification, but we need a solution that works.'"

What we have on our hands here is a product of good intentions. No one wants to think about their kids spending hour after hour cruising sites for barely legal cheerleaders and smooth college boys. That's a privilege we get along with our voter registration card and our registration for the draft.

As Richardson told the AP, the kids looking at porn aren't the ones in real danger: "'It's not underage customers the government should be worried about,' but minors pictured on the sites."

Before that time, kids shouldn't be using the Internet for porn binges, even though they will. The solution, as advocated by so many Internet safety experts from the pantheon of political viewpoints, is simple: Move the computer to the family room, and make sure the monitor is visible to anyone who walks through the room. While you're at it, install a content filter.

I don't call that a total solution, but as long as the connection feeds the home, kids can use it to look at whatever they want. If we want a real solution, we need to talk to our children about sex, pornography and the difference between the two.

If that won't help them make more discerning choices about their Internet use, cut the connection when you're not home.

After Shock Media · 08-01-2005, 11:05 AM

"'This is completely offensive to this industry because it has matured over the last couple years. It is not interested in children coming to Web sites anymore,'

I still shudder over this quote and hope he really did not say this.

Quickdraw · 08-01-2005, 11:07 AM

Great, and Hymes was quoted with that 'anymore' stuff again :/

Oops, seems I was beat by an After Shock. At least I know I am not the only one seeing this.

Radik · 08-01-2005, 11:15 AM

all that will do is force alot of money into other countries.. mostly canada

Giorgio_Xo · 08-01-2005, 11:34 AM

Wow. I am amazed by the Hymes quote. He did us a great disservice on that one. Everyone gets a few wrong. Tom is human.

Brujah · 08-01-2005, 04:23 PM

I don't mind the porn tax IF I thought it was really be used to stop child pornography production. The industry's Adult Verification Systems tried and failed for the most part due to VISA, to manage age checking. Make it known how this has been attempted but VISA says "NO!", I hope this is mentioned in a future article.

tony286 · 08-01-2005, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giorgio_Xo

Wow. I am amazed by the Hymes quote. He did us a great disservice on that one. Everyone gets a few wrong. Tom is human.

Why its the truth, we are going to get some respect we have to be honest and cant turn a blind eye to the recklessness of the past.

azguy · 08-01-2005, 04:31 PM

Just add a god damn <XXX> HTML header on all sites and call it a day.. Then parents will have nothing to complain about.

jact · 08-01-2005, 04:32 PM

As Richardson told the AP, the kids looking at porn aren't the ones in real danger: "'It's not underage customers the government should be worried about,' but minors pictured on the sites."

That so highly disturbs me.

warlock5 · 08-01-2005, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

I don't mind the porn tax IF I thought it was really be used to stop child pornography production. The industry's Adult Verification Systems tried and failed for the most part due to VISA, to manage age checking. Make it known how this has been attempted but VISA says "NO!", I hope this is mentioned in a future article.

Why? This isn't like cigs and lung cancer. They are trying to push the blame on legit businessmen who do follow the law. Who the fuck thinks CPers are going to be paying these taxes?

will76 · 08-01-2005, 09:13 PM

What is sad is that half of these Senator bitches probably don't even know how to use a computer so how the hell would they know what goes on, on the internet.

So many people hide behind the children with their secret agenda. It's a damn shame. This will never get passed but its one of those, "it makes me look good to jump on the bandwagon", kinda of PR games politicians play all the time.

" the Internet porn industry brings in $12 billion in annual revenues (think ABC + NBC + CBS, the Times-Picayune said) from 420 million Web pages frequented primarily by children aged 12 to 17. "

So there are more kids 12 to 17 frequenting our websites then 18+ year olds ?

Who's the dipshit that actually believes that. Is that what these people really think ?

" But he said the growth has been astronomical because the pornography industry knows how to use technology to stay one step ahead of popular government regulations." What government regulations are we staying ahead of? someone fill me in ?

but here is the quote I like the best "'As parents, it is our responsibility to protect our children -- and no longer does protecting our children mean only holding their hand while crossing the street.'"

and yet here is the solution "software is available that can help Web operators keep children away from viewing inappropriate material, but only 3 percent use them."

Like parents really care about this, if they did care more then 3 percent would take the couple minutes time to install a filter on the computer. What the hell they plan on doing with 25% of the profits, it's not going to make parents become responsible and that is where the problem can be fixed, easily fixed. but they dont care.

will76 · 08-01-2005, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by warlock5

Why? This isn't like cigs and lung cancer. They are trying to push the blame on legit businessmen who do follow the law. Who the fuck thinks CPers are going to be paying these taxes?

Good point... why not increase the fines for idiots who mail nude pictures to kids and use that money for some bullshit fund. Why tax me, if I do not show any nudity in a public area. Or better yet.. what if i advertise an adult site with non nude images you going to try to tax me too ?

this thing has sooo many things wrong with it, it will never get anywhere. Wonder why they stopped at 25%, why not take 75%, and let acacia take 25% and we will just work for free, collect unemployement and then instead of the govt receiving tens of millions of dollars of income tax each year from us, they can send us welfare checks and pay our way.

je_rome · 08-02-2005, 12:42 AM

wow! good points there. definitely something to ponder on. a must-read!

08-01-2005, 11:02 AM	#1
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	good article on porn tax washington post Taxing Internet Porn By Robert MacMillan washingtonpost.com Staff Writer Monday, August 1, 2005; 8:39 AM I'm no free-market libertarian. You'll never hear me argue against a healthy dose of regulation if it helps consumers without stopping businesses from turning a profit. Almost never. A group of Democratic senators last week introduced a bill that would slap a 25 percent tax on Internet pornography sites to pay for a trust fund to "protect" children online. I'm sure they think this is a great idea, but as for me, I'm hoping it will end up at the back of the Senate parliamentarian's filing cabinet under the spare coffee filters. The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported on the proposal: "'Our children can literally stumble into adult Web sites that are inappropriate for their viewing,' said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who joined eight Democratic colleagues in introducing the Internet Safety and Child Protection Act of 2005. 'As parents, it is our responsibility to protect our children -- and no longer does protecting our children mean only holding their hand while crossing the street.'" The problem, according to the bill's sponsor, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) is that the Internet porn industry brings in $12 billion in annual revenues (think ABC + NBC + CBS, the Times-Picayune said) from 420 million Web pages frequented primarily by children aged 12 to 17. "Lincoln said software is available that can help Web operators keep children away from viewing inappropriate material, but only 3 percent use them. Most only require a child to 'check off' a statement asserting that they are 18 or older, she said," the newspaper reported. Strangely enough, Lincoln's Web site doesn't contain a single press release or statement from 2005. For some official touting of the bill, see cosponsor Sen. Debbie Stabenow's (Mich.) site . Other cosponsors include Sens. Kent Conrad (N.D.), Tom Carper (Del.), Joseph Lieberman (Conn.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Ken Salazar (Colo.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.). Democratic Reps. Jim Matheson (Utah) and Robert Menendez (N.J.) introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives. The Bayou Buzz Web site noted that the bill was prompted by a report sponsored by The Third Way , which writer Steve Sabludowski described as a "a growing political organization, designed to energize the progressive base and end the partisan bickering that has overcome the United States. It has recently begun the New South Project, which is an effort to address the growing alienation of mainstream southerners from progressive ideas, leaders and groups. The New South Project is chaired by Sens. Landrieu and Mark Pryor, D-Ark." In other words, the idea is to raise more southern voter support for conservative-sounding policies that any good Democrat can back. What a relief! For a moment I thought that their primary purpose was to save the children. The Associated Press carried some expert commentary: "Tim Richardson, an Internet commerce professor at Seneca College in Toronto, said the actual number of pornographic Web pages is impossible to confirm because they are so often duplicated to force Internet search engines to list them more prominently. But he said the growth has been astronomical because the pornography industry knows how to use technology to stay one step ahead of popular government regulations. 'The whole launching of the porn industry in the 1980s was tied to the VCR and the ability to watch XXX movies in your own home,' Richardson said. 'There are precedents to how the porn industry has exploited technology, so the Internet is nothing new.'" The Times-Picayune and the AP quoted Tom Hymes of the Free Speech Coalition for the porn industry's spin. "The report says 12- to 17-year-olds are the top consumers of Internet pornography, based on older studies that found adult Web sites make their money based mainly on how many visitors they attract. Hymes said that business model didn't work and was ditched by most Web sites around 2001," the AP wrote. "'This is completely offensive to this industry because it has matured over the last couple years. It is not interested in children coming to Web sites anymore,' Hymes said. 'We want verification, but we need a solution that works.'" What we have on our hands here is a product of good intentions. No one wants to think about their kids spending hour after hour cruising sites for barely legal cheerleaders and smooth college boys. That's a privilege we get along with our voter registration card and our registration for the draft. As Richardson told the AP, the kids looking at porn aren't the ones in real danger: "'It's not underage customers the government should be worried about,' but minors pictured on the sites." Before that time, kids shouldn't be using the Internet for porn binges, even though they will. The solution, as advocated by so many Internet safety experts from the pantheon of political viewpoints, is simple: Move the computer to the family room, and make sure the monitor is visible to anyone who walks through the room. While you're at it, install a content filter. I don't call that a total solution, but as long as the connection feeds the home, kids can use it to look at whatever they want. If we want a real solution, we need to talk to our children about sex, pornography and the difference between the two. If that won't help them make more discerning choices about their Internet use, cut the connection when you're not home.

08-01-2005, 11:05 AM	#2
After Shock Media It's coming look busy Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn". Posts: 35,299	"'This is completely offensive to this industry because it has matured over the last couple years. It is not interested in children coming to Web sites anymore,' I still shudder over this quote and hope he really did not say this. __________________ [email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]

08-01-2005, 11:07 AM	#3
Quickdraw Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: → → → Posts: 1,717	Great, and Hymes was quoted with that 'anymore' stuff again :/ Oops, seems I was beat by an After Shock. At least I know I am not the only one seeing this. Last edited by Quickdraw; 08-01-2005 at 11:09 AM..

08-01-2005, 11:15 AM	#4
Radik Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Vancouver ICQ: 3588423 Posts: 808	all that will do is force alot of money into other countries.. mostly canada __________________ 100% Exclusive, Check Us Out!

08-01-2005, 11:34 AM	#5
Giorgio_Xo Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 4,263	Wow. I am amazed by the Hymes quote. He did us a great disservice on that one. Everyone gets a few wrong. Tom is human. __________________ Make Levees, Not War

08-01-2005, 04:23 PM	#6
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	I don't mind the porn tax IF I thought it was really be used to stop child pornography production. The industry's Adult Verification Systems tried and failed for the most part due to VISA, to manage age checking. Make it known how this has been attempted but VISA says "NO!", I hope this is mentioned in a future article. __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

08-01-2005, 04:31 PM	#8
azguy Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ Posts: 5,167	Just add a god damn <XXX> HTML header on all sites and call it a day.. Then parents will have nothing to complain about.

08-01-2005, 04:32 PM	#9
jact Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Oakville, Canada Posts: 9,134	As Richardson told the AP, the kids looking at porn aren't the ones in real danger: "'It's not underage customers the government should be worried about,' but minors pictured on the sites." That so highly disturbs me. __________________ Free agent

08-01-2005, 09:13 PM	#11
will76 Making $$$$ w/ ClickCash Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: USA Posts: 18,037	What is sad is that half of these Senator bitches probably don't even know how to use a computer so how the hell would they know what goes on, on the internet. So many people hide behind the children with their secret agenda. It's a damn shame. This will never get passed but its one of those, "it makes me look good to jump on the bandwagon", kinda of PR games politicians play all the time. " the Internet porn industry brings in $12 billion in annual revenues (think ABC + NBC + CBS, the Times-Picayune said) from 420 million Web pages frequented primarily by children aged 12 to 17. " So there are more kids 12 to 17 frequenting our websites then 18+ year olds ? Who's the dipshit that actually believes that. Is that what these people really think ? " But he said the growth has been astronomical because the pornography industry knows how to use technology to stay one step ahead of popular government regulations." What government regulations are we staying ahead of? someone fill me in ? but here is the quote I like the best "'As parents, it is our responsibility to protect our children -- and no longer does protecting our children mean only holding their hand while crossing the street.'" and yet here is the solution "software is available that can help Web operators keep children away from viewing inappropriate material, but only 3 percent use them." Like parents really care about this, if they did care more then 3 percent would take the couple minutes time to install a filter on the computer. What the hell they plan on doing with 25% of the profits, it's not going to make parents become responsible and that is where the problem can be fixed, easily fixed. but they dont care. __________________ ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com PROGRAM SHIT LIST - DO NOT PROMOTE (click link for gfy thread) FNCash \| Media Revenue

08-02-2005, 12:42 AM	#13
je_rome Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,846	wow! good points there. definitely something to ponder on. a must-read! __________________ Make money on any traffic. Join KlikRevenue.com Today!