good work Tom FSC
 

Centrist Democrats, Matheson seek porn tax

2SKjrk504fils

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - A group of centrist Democrats that includes Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah is proposing putting a 25 percent tax on Internet pornography sales and require visitors to the Web sites to prove they are adults.

The group released a report Wednesday that said the number of pornographic Web pages has grown 3,000 percent since 1998 and federal laws must be changed to keep children away from them.

The think tank Third Way said there were 14 million pornographic Web pages in 1998 and 420 million today.

The report said 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.

Tom Hymes, a spokesman for the Free Speech Coalition, a lobbying group backed by the pornography industry. He said that business model didn't work and was ditched by most Web sites around 2001.

''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.''

Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, the bill's lead sponsor, said the 25 percent excise tax would raise funds for law enforcement to fight cyberspace crimes and for educating Internet users on how to keep children away from adult sites.

Hymes says it's unfair to go after law-abiding Internet pornographers for the child-exploitation of a few. He said pornography for adults is constitutionally protected speech.

The Deseret Morning News said Matheson is to introduce the bill in the House.

Matheson told the newspaper's Washington office that software exists that allows Web site operators to require the same proof of age that brick-and-mortar stores require before selling pornography. However, he said only 3 percent of pornographic Web sites require age verification that goes beyond the ''honor system.''

''The porn industry has infiltrated our homes, and it compromises what can be an excellent learning tool for our children. It is inexcusable for Congress not to act,'' Matheson said.

Third Way spokesman Matt Bennett acknowledged the bill is a chance for Democrats to push a moral issue after Republicans have laid claim to so-called ''values issues.''

Lincoln agreed, but said that was not her motivation.

''I don't disagree this is perhaps an opportunity for a centrist to say I have a moral issue, but that's secondary,'' Lincoln said.

''This is all about the anxiousness that all parents feel about trying to keep their kids safe in their own homes, in a venue that we're not as familiar with,'' Lincoln said.

AP-WS-07-28-05 0517EDT

good article tony

My question is are they going to start taxing all of the Fortune 500 companies that are also making money off of porn?

Every major hotel chain makes money by selling porn pay-per-view

Every major cable company makes money the same way

Every phone company makes money from 900 etc

Let's not forget the dsl / broadband / dail-up providors

Who else should be added to the list? I know I am forgeting some.

"Centrist" my ass. These modern-day dixiecrats need to be kicked to the curb where they won't infest people trying to make a difference.

Go peddle your interference for the GOP. You'll fit right in; they like trying to tell people how to think.

They will probably toutch the big compagnies the least possible

That quote seems odd to me. What is with "anymore"?

no kidding. i've been in the biz since 1996, and i NEVER wanted kids anywhere near my sites. fucking parents - i wish they would use filtering software :mad:

Maybe HE used to run porn sites and targeted kids?
I don't know of legitimate adult business that did this.

Maybe I am taking his quote wrong, but it sure doesn't make the legitimate adult industry look very good at all.

I agree. It should be a felony to allow a child unsupervised access to the internet.

It's a misquote. I have an email out to the reporter complaining about it, and will contact his editor too. I would never have made any such comment, and at any rate, he knew exactly what my position was, as I was more than clear. But overall, the article is fairer than most, so my main concern with that sentence is that the sworn enemies of this business don't extract it and use it down the line to try and prove something. I'm not going to make a huge deal out of it, but I will let them know that they have singed a source, and I may only work with AP from now on through email.

Tom

Thanks Tom for clarifying that.
Good luck getting it cleared up. I would be livid.
They should publish a retraction, whoever they are.

That's moronic.

Most every one of those verifies your age before you get service. The ones that don't still require a credit card. Try again.

So the FSc will step in cut a deal and we will only have a 12.5 % tax

:1orglaugh