Senator Set to Propose 25 Percent Tax on Adult Websites

Here's how Blanche Lincoln has been spending her time...

From AVN.COM
By: Kathee Brewer
Posted: 5:16 pm PDT 7-19-2005

WASHINGTON - Draft legislation seeking stringent age-verification standards and a 25 percent tax on all adult entertainment revenues generated via the Web is likely to be introduced in the Senate within the next few weeks, according to information obtained Tuesday by AVN.

Sen. Blanche L. Lincoln (D-Ark.) initially planned to announce The Internet Safety and Child Protection Act of 2005 Wednesday morning, but changed her mind after it was announced that President George W. Bush would nominate a potential replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor Tuesday evening.

Although under revision late Tuesday, a draft of the legislation places primary responsibility for its enforcement in the hands of the Federal Trade Commission. Violations of the proposed legislation would be treated as violations of the section of the Federal Trade Commission Act that deals with unfair and deceptive trade practices.

The proposed act is divided into two sections. Title I stipulates “an operator of a regulated pornographic website shall verify that any user attempting to access their site is 18 years of age or older using software certified for that purpose … prior to the display of any pornographic material, including free content that may be available prior to the purchase of a subscription or product”(emphasis added). Title II attempts to fund enforcement of Title I and various other activities related to children and pornography by imposing a 25 percent tax on gross website receipts. The bill also would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include a revenue category called “Internet Display or Distribution of Pornography.”

More: http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=233801

Or buy playboys.

Any company in its right mind would quickly move their headquarters out of the U.S. if this gets passed. Instead of the IRS collecting normal business taxes from adult entertainment, they'll get a big ZERO.

That's my understanding, anyway...

overseas now.

Sure, subcontintental Indians can answer phones as well as us, but when it comes to porn, it still matters that most of us Americans are, well ... we're just HOTTER than they are!
:crazy: :hide:

...I mean, would you want to see Blanche Lincoln "performing"?

not Lincoln. But, say, Granholm and Landrieu? hmmm... :silly:

Mary L is hotttt

:blush:

...and ask why I don't see anything from her office about Rove/Libby and Traitor-Gate, which should be a higher priority than this pandering piece of crap...

maybe Lincoln wants to run for POTUS too.

:rofl:

Right now all the pornography that matters is hosted offshore, you can get offshore hosting cheap and anywhere. To me this looks like a strategy to get more government invovlment in the Internet period, and that's scary from a civil liberties view.

... of the camel sticking its head under the tent, pretty soon, it wants the whole tent.

that when the Income Tax was put in to effect around either 1913 or 1916, it was 1% of income over one million dollars, most of the rest of the camel is now in the tent.

Didn't you read? It's for THE CHILDREN, of course! :sarcasm:

is that they'll move their host servers out of the country.

All that terrorism being funded by porn, you know.

It's the one thing Corporate Capitalist America has yet to really bleed dry at this point, so they gotta go after something. They're like locusts....

I was expecting to see Rick Santorum's name attached to it, or maybe Sam Brownback or Tom Coburn.

But Noooooooooooo. It's one of these pathetic attempts to appease the so-called "values voters" by a Democrat from the Accomodationist wing of the party.

Fuck you Blanche. Your ideas are a throwback to the same decade your name came from.

Um...excuse me Blanche, but aren't there more important things to be worrying about than cocks and tits? Obviously not in her wilderness of a mind.

May be true, not the best of names, but I might take a "Blanche" over a Madison, Sierra, Apple, Rumer or Scout if I had to pick!

Great reference to Cletus the slack jawed yokel.

You are not only an ageist, but a sexist as well. Is that what the democratic males are espousing these days?

Sounds pretty immature. Maybe someday when/if you reproduce and have a daughter, you might think differently. But if you truly feel that porn is a God given right to men...that DP, ATM is something that should be fought for, then I hope you shoot blanks.

Are you willing to fight for your right to watch porn....protest, send letter, write emails, ridicule and humiliate anyone who disagrees with you about your need and right to watch women being used as sexual objects. "I WANT MY PORN....I HAVE THE RIGHT TO VIEW WOMEN AS NOTHING BUT HOLES." Are those the signs you are going to carry as you march toward Congress?

Yep, you dem males are true stewards of our Democracy....real stand up guys...did you ever think that it is YOUR attitudes that scare the pugs away....and not us pro-choice women?

You are the ones who demand the right to porn.....something to think about....I know how you lefty males like to blame Pro-Choice women for the Democratic loses...but you know what? You need to look at your own damn penises....the Fundies and churchgoers and Bible Thumpers are JUST AS PISSED over the fact that porn is now mainstream...Now maybe I wouldn't be so mad if porn were fair...ie, erect penises on billboards, more male frontal nudity in movies rated R (but you guys are so modest....can't even get condom commercials to go along with the Viagra commmercials during the evening news). But the Fundies don't like this stuff....in fact, they think that all of this porn is causing all of these abortions! Ever thought of that, dumb dems?

And the Dems have way overlooked (on purpose) what Clinton's lie about the blow job did to the dem party....sure no one died....but he made the same mistake that Nixon did....he kept lying and lying and lying....Karma got his ass and it will get W's and all the other neo-cons as well.

But it amazes me that the Dem MALE leadership never copped to Bill's mistake...and that has hurt the party so much more than Pro-Choice women....

So Wake Up and Be Smart....please. thx. ...I can hear it now.......

but your nasty talk is turning me on!:evilgrin:

what on earth are you talking about?

Gasp! What if I'm gay? When did you assume that I only wanted to look at, as you say "WOMEN AS NOTHING BUT HOLES?"

I think you need to calm down and realize that perhaps you shouldn't directly attack people on assumptions, especially one of sexual orientation. You might be wrong.

Also, I guess you've yet to notice that women like to look at porn, too. Funny how both sexes can enjoy porn. It's a two way street, and anyone who purchases or enjoys porn will be in trouble with this bill, regardless of sex.

The bill will tax any type of pornography, hetero, homo, all kinds.

Your response seems almost like a parody.

...or at least as serious as some of these anti-porn tirades can be.

You start out by accusing a poster of sexism then go on quite a tirade against "male dems" yourself. Pot-kettle-black.

As far as porn goes, yeah - I'll march toward congress with a sign. Millions of responsible adults both men and women enjoy adult entertainment. That's all it is entertainment.

So, if you are all for banning or punishing (by over taxation) certain types of entertainment - where does it end? Should we put the curtain back over lady justice lest her tits offend? Why don't we just ban all speech that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell deem offensive. We might as well reduce our society to what is acceptable for an 8 year old.

That's always been the question - where do we draw the line? My view is that it is an impossible line to draw. One person's porn is another's erotica, and so on. Short of the filming of an actual crime (I.E. child porn, the filming of an actual rape, bestiality), it should all be legal.

In fact, it has long been legal to own these materials. It is only illegal for me to sell it to you. How can that be? How can I be legally able to posses an asset, if I do not have the right to sell it. How is it that I can be arrested for a movie that may be obscene because it does not meet "community values", when that same movie may have been show on pay-per-view cable on a cable system given a franchise by the same locality that is now prosecuting me?

If a person has the right to posses a particular movie, then do they not also by extension, have the right to buy it?

As the local smut peddler, I have been put in the tenuous position of arbiter of community values - but if I put the wrong movie on my shelves, I go to jail. Is that not in and of itself a chilling effect on free speech?

Porn is simply entertainment. It is enjoyed by millions of people each year, and just because you find it distasteful does not give you the right to dictate what other people can read or view in the privacy of their own homes.

You state that you are pro-choice. Why is it then that you would have the government get involved in what other people may view, is that not their choice also?

If you don't like porn - don't watch it. It's really as simple as that.

Very well written, mongo. Thank you. :headbang:

I tried to PM you, but your post count is too low. Why the name change?

:patriot:

He somehow finds the strength to battle the prudes and sexist hypocrites when I fall behind and find myself speechless. I salute him!

But it's not a sexual one.

And dredging up old anti-Clinton talking points.

Sarcasm is not as easy as it looks.

That's my opinion. But many people enjoy those forms of entertainment - it is fantasy for them and I can understand that. I would never seek to censor and/or tax/regulate their entertainment, just because I didn't like it.

I don't even know what to say anymore.

:puke:

I blanched when I saw the headline. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

welcome mrmark :hi:

Feeling a little puritanically guilty, "Senator" Lincoln?

Maybe it could ask some complex mathematical question (randomly chosen each time), that only someone with at least a high school trigonometry background would know? This would certainly motivate teenagers to take their studies more seriously. It would be win win.

nothign angrier than a freeper that can't have its pr0n, all because of some pointed-head liberal "trigonometry" question.

would be for the sites to require a credit card to even get to the free area.

Not that a credit card is proof of majority in this day and age, but it's the closest thing they have, and something that is used as a defense in "disseminating matter harmful to juveniles" cases.

25%? Talk about robbery.

Every website that may possibly have a nude picture on it will require your credit card to enter. Thus, scammers would have a field day with all of that CC information.

VISA (the adult Internet's main cc processor) has informed us they are not in the age verification business.

will be the first ones surfing the net for porn. You'd solve nothing with that proposal.

A group called The Third Way is sponsoring this bill. They put out a report that touts an age verification service that requires surfers to enter all the personal information that appears on your drivers license, including the ID# and your first, middle and last name. This service would be regulated by the FTC.

So basically if you want to look at porn, you have to get permission from the government first.

You can have a look at this service by going here: http://www.kidsheriff.com

They're Patriot Act compliant, so you should expect your personal information to fall into the hands of the DOJ at some point.

This looks pretty shady to me. I did some digging and found out that this service is owned by a politically connected technology company called Aristotle.

I guess all those years helping put people in office has finally paid off. A group of senators just created a bill that makes their product manditory.

I know everybody is complaining about the porn tax, but the privacy issue is what bothers me the most. This is yet another attack on our civil liberties.

Fucking puritans...

what ever happened to baby jane, anyway?

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

edited for spelling :-)

We can have a new Pornography Enforcement Network Investigation Service (PENIS).

Hilarious.

I spend way more on porn than on taxes!

Your methods are stupid. Your progress has been stupid. Your intelligence is stupid!

Less Americans will vote for Democrats as Democrats continue to lose the high ground on free speech.

Hillary will definitely support this.

I can't support this....

It won't survive judicial scrutiny since it's an unfair regulation of free trade....

Discriminatory tax status based on content of speech. Even this Supreme Court would have to toss it based on long history of precedent...

onenote

And thus a grandstanding play straight out of the Republican playbook (see "Anti-Flag-Burning Laws"). Boy, this makes me proud to be a Democrat. :eyes:

if it is considered a product (which you have to pay for), then I could see this being constitutional. If the site doesn't charge money then there would be no tax. Only the age requirement.

This sounds reasonable to me, she is my senator.

Get real. The proposed tax is nothing but a blatant attack on an industry for which few people have sympathy, and an amateurish attempt at grabbing a few votes from the self-righteous, holier-than-thou crowd.

some states have taxes on food, some don't

Some cities have 11% tax on food. I am more concerned about getting the 11% tax off my food than I am concerned about saving 25% on entertainment. I am tired of paying taxes on bread. If making people pay a little more for entertainment is what it takes, fine by me. Look, it's not like a 1000% tax. Like I said before, rental cars have like a 30-40% tax rate in some areas. I am not saying that this is the right thing to do, only that I think it is. I consider myself an independent and I never intend to sell out. But to suggest that Lincoln is trying to make a statement to her voters is probably correct. She gets 60%+ in Arkansas and things like this is probably why.

I do not agree with Hillary Clinton's attack on video games. To me that is a issue of civil liberties and is more about parenting than about sex. That is something that I see as trying to get Republican votes dispite that it is wrong. The difference is that I think that Lincoln actually thinks this is a good idea, while Hillary knows nothing about video games.

It says a "25 percent tax on revenues". That means its a tax on the businesses, not on the consumers, however, you can be sure that at least part of that tax would be passed on to consumers.

If not, then you shouldn't support this.

actually, the South used to have poll taxes that mysteriously only Negroes really had to pay

But, a tax on pornography would be more like the tax on cigarettes and alcohol. What are seen as "Sin Taxes" tend to be acceptable to most of the population.

Personally, I am of the "don't we have anything else to worry about" persuasion. So unless something like this comes up as part of a revenue/budgeting discussion, I think it is stupid.

Adding a tax to pornogrphy is not going to protect children.

I think the difference is that alcohol and cigarettes don't fall under "freedom of speech".

If there is a special tax on porn because it's bad for children, shouldn't there also be a special tax on violent movies?

So, after alcohol and cigarettes....

I mean, while we are talking about "sin" taxes

And for some reason, violent movies aren't seen as sinful. You can show people getting shot in very graphic detail, but heaven forbid you should see a breast...

And we do have restrictions on free speech, otherwise Howard Stern wouldn't be moving to satelitte radio.

They do not pay taxes if they do not charge for it.

you are assuming it is because of children, but CHILDREN SHOULDN'T SEE IT ANYWAY, so that arguement doesn't really hold water. I see it more of a tax on a type of entertainment.

You obviously haven't read this bill or the associated report. They absolutely are doing this to "protect the children."

You can learn more about what they're doing by going here: http://www.third-way.com/news/porn_report.htm

And I'd just like to point out their report on porn is flawed because it a) doesn't contain any original research; and b) relies on outdated information from dubious sources, including right-wing extremists who want to ban all forms of sexual speech.

One reason is that this law applies to free websites as well. Obviously a limit on free speech without question.

not heard me talk while drinking.

Signed

A normally quiet person

PS I haven't drank since 1998, but I used to be talkative when I was drinking. Know several people who are like that.

They are trying to tax speech based on the content of the speech.

as soon as you charge people for the "speech" it becomes a product

taxes on a bottle of water vs taxes on a bottle of wine

Would it be constitutional for the government to make a 10000% tax on all books written by liberals?

Just because you buy something doesn't make it no longer speech.

A book is not speech if you have to pay for it?

Newspapers aren't free. And attempts to tax newspapers based on their content has been held to be unconstitutional. And so is this proposal. Commercial speech used to have less protection, but its see-sawed back and forth over recent years. But commercial speech is speech that is trying to sell a product (i.e. advertising). The mere fact that you charge for something doesn't make it commercial speech.
In fact, while you would provide greater protection if the site was free, the fact is that the stronger case would be if they were trying to regulate "free" porn sites that were basically advertisements for pay sites.

onenote

If this is true:

"attempts to tax newspapers based on their content has been held to be unconstitutional"

Then I would agree that this bill is bad.

They change the tax rate based on content. Just like how water may have a lower tax rate than wine. Both come in bottles and are sold at the same place.

I think 95% of people can tell the difference between charging taxes on movies with black people in them and charging taxes on movies with actions/nudity in them. (nudity is defined by the government)

How obvious does it have to be.

Books are not free, but they are speech. Do you disagree?

Removed

I think 95% of people can tell the difference between charging taxes on movies with black people in them and charging taxes on movies with actions/nudity in them. (nudity is defined by the government)

So, we let the government decide what is "good" or "bad" speech?

How about a 25% tax on religious speech? I'm sure that does much more harm than porn.

for the web......

Is it simple nudity? What if it's website about breast cancer? What if it's a website about plastic surgery? How will a government official decide what is and what isn't porn?

Also, here's how to protect children. DON'T LET THEM USE THE COMPUTER UNATTENDED!!!!!

Your child does not need a computer to learn. NASA engineers put men into space and on the moon, and they grew up without calculators, let alone computers.

Pissing off the socially-liberal and smaller-government types in one fell swooop.

The only audience it plays to are the brainwashed puritanical fundies who aren't going to vote for her, or any Democrat, anyway because they're the party of "baby-killers".

They are hurting the entire Democratic Party by attacking free speech and no Bush Republican will every voter for either of them.

they are also sucking up to maternalists (who some deride as 'nanny staters') on the left - the same people who wanted to ban guns in the 90's, who want anti-spanking laws now, who want to regulate fast food, etc.

The maternalists do have many good ideas I agree with- like anti-bullying measures - for example. I also agree with some aspects of gun control - heck if you need a license to drive a car you should need some sort of license to handle a gun. I won't completely go against them - I'm not your typical knee-jerk libertarian, but more of the moderate and sometimes left leaning variety (think Bill Maher). I like to consider all ideas and generally embrace the values of liberty, if not raw libertarianism (which often does not produce liberty).

And yes - many of these policies are really hurting the Democratic Party because 'the personal is political' - if people feel you want to take away their vice (whatever it is) - that's when they (who are mostly apolitical) come out of the woodwork to vote against you.

This is why Dems lose- because they're basically stupid. What strategic advantage did the woman hope to gain by this ridiculous proposal? I defy anyone to give me a reason why she won't come out looking like Tipper Gore- worse for the wear and smearing her colleagues in the process.

The backroom Republicans (who actually know something about strategy) must be laughing their asses off....

she was just pushing for music to be labeled and rated the same as movies. Due to age and cultural differences parents and their children generally do not listen to the same music, so if your eleven year old daughter were to purhase music, how would you know if did not have obscene or inappropriate language for your her?

I agree that this is on its face a much more absurd scheme- but if she pushes this thing and goes out for publicity, it's going to "look" the same to the public as Tipper going after music lyrics.

Her advocacy was before the advent of google, or even the internet.

I actually don't think the idea of parental notification stickers was a bad idea (I favor giving parents a warning over what's in the music), but I think the way it came across was really a mess.

As for Lincoln's thing, it makes no sense whatsoever because it's taxing one particular type of speech and aside from the fact that it is constitutionally suspect, I have no idea how they would determine what "adult" websites are.

??? WTF???

The Mob wants their vig.

on edit:
Don't get me wrong. I'm sure Blanche is as sincere as any politician about doing this for political advantage. However, she's just a useful idiot in all this. It wouldn't happen unless the Powers That Be were in favor of it. And they would do it for the money.

I mean if the sites are based in a foreign country they can't be taxed. Unless we become like China and start filtering all internet content (which is a really bad idea) this stuff won't go away. Plus a tax like this just opens the door for other internet taxes.

.... sounds good to people who are ignorant of how the internet works.

All this would do is force the porn sites offshore. Many of them are already, this would just hasten the move. Then there would be NO tax collected on porn sales - at least now profits are taxed.

The person proposing this is really not very smart, or she is pandering.

Either way, she's not worthy of anyone's vote, she's out of her league.

a game based on stealing cars and killing cops, and these
fucking puritans only get worried when a little sex is
added.

are they going to determine what constitutes an "adult" website? What about nude and erotic photography? What about art websites which feature nude paintings? What about erotic writing?

The law relies on 18 USC 2257 for its definition of "regulated pornographic web site."

Here's the problem: 2257 doesn't define pornography. It's a law that was created to regulate the record-keeping requirements for model IDs, and it only applies to images of actual people engaged in actual "sexually explicit" conduct. Nudity and simulated sex are exempt, and so are graphic animations, artwork, cartoons, and explicit language. And it only applies to images produced after July 3, 1995.

I'm thinking this would mean Jenna Jameson would have to pay the tax, but Hugh Hefner wouldn't. Which is just stupid, because I'm sure parents would consider Playboy inapproprate for children even though its non-explicit.

The people who wrote this law are idiots. They don't know what the hell they're doing.

Another problem is 18 USC 2257 might get overturned because of changes John Ashcroft made to it before he left office. Free speech advocates have sued the DOJ to prevent 2257 enforcement because of First and Fourth Amendment issues. If this happens the porn tax law would be up shit creek, because it wouldn't have a workable definition of pornography.

These unfair regulations/taxes are not going to hurt the big porn producers. Nope. They are going to hurt the little guy with a camcorder and a dream. They are going to hurt the Bangbros of the world, who started little and because they were actually giving the customer what they wanted (more natural, girl next door, curvaceous, more ethnic) and not the typical fake/plastic/rail thin/all white actors - they skyrocketed to the top of the porn world. With high taxes, the driving force of porn will switch from young men and women of the internet generation who currently produce and star in it - back to the old, grubby suits who work for big corporations.

I'm a fairly young man and a minority - if that matters. I have to laugh at the people who want to imply that porn is only a white male thing - that's bullshit. lol. And to the people who say "get a real partner": ummm, we know that. Porn isn't a replacment for healthy relationships with real people any more than soap operas or any other forms of entertainment are. Porn is about fantasy - about doing things the average person can't or won't do in real life - for example: threesomes, group sex, anonymous sex with extremely hot people, etc.

And of course I want children protected from porn. As I stated in the GTA 'hot coffee' threads, I support efforts to to build and enforce a stronger legal wall between adult culture and youth culture. I am for helping parents to do their job. What I am completely against is our adult culture, rights and freedoms being taken away under the guise of 'saving the children' - when we all know it is never really about the children but about some other moral agenda ( which usually comes from the paternalist right and/or the maternalist left).

It's great to hear such rational and well-thought-out opinions from a young man about a subject that many Americans can't discuss without becoming embarassed.

Any savvy web porn operator will find a back door.

Find something else to do, Blanche. Make us proud of that D after your name.

why would anyone pay for it?

Obviously, the millions of people who pay for porn don't see it that way.

How do you go about getting that "D" changed to "R"?

As far as I'm concerned, this pathetic excuse for a Democrat needs to be booted from the party.

why, oh why!, are some people just grub worm dumb? can stay perfectly silent about treason, war crimes, high crimes and misdemeanors in office, voter fraud, torture, etc. but this is worth crusading for?

unbelievably stupid.

i'm coming to the idea that all democrats should just shut up and follow obediently the lead of dean, he's the only one who seems to not have his head up his ass. if you can't think your way out of a paper bag, just sit down, shut up, and obey someone who does. what a waste of a democratic seat. i'd rather have a ouija board channeling the ghost of eleanor roosevelt than this seat warmer.

if she was my senator she'd get a real big piece of my mind.