It’s Official: Porn Tax, Mandatory Age Verification Go Before House and Se

[Mister Mark]

From AVN.COM
By: Kathee Brewer
Posted: 4:25 pm PDT 7-27-2005

WASHINGTON - More than a week after news of its existence leaked, a bill seeking a 25 percent excise tax on adult entertainment purchased online and the imposition of mandatory, “certified” age verification of adult website visitors was introduced Wednesday by nine Democratic Senators. Concurrently, two members of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced companion legislation there.

“The Internet has become our new American Main Street, and it’s literally transforming the experience of growing up in America in a way much different from the way parents of today grew up,” Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), author of The Internet Safety and Child Protection Act of 2005, told reporters during a press conference Wednesday morning. “Many Internet service providers have taken significant steps to provide parents with tools to protect their children from inappropriate material online, and they should be commended. But sadly, many adult-oriented websites in today’s online world are not only failing to keep products unsuitable for children from view, but are also pushing those products in children’s faces. And it’s time that we stand up and say enough is enough.”

Lincoln said her legislation would help relieve the anxieties experienced by parents due to the lack of control many feel they have over what their children view online. She said it’s time the costs of protecting children online shift from the American taxpayer to “the actual purveyors of online pornography.” The Senate bill is cosponsored by Senators Tom Carper (D-Del.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). The House version was introduced by Reps Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.).

More: http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=234443

[lvx35]

1. BUH GAWK!?!?!?!? What the hell?

“certified” age verification of adult website visitors was introduced Wednesday by nine Democratic Senators."

Democrats??? Okay. I apologize. All you guys knocking the DLC, and me telling you to stop because we need unity? I'm sorry. But you are so right. These people are way off.

[greekspeak]

2. Stay off my computer you sell outs

If you are trying to create a wedge issue, you are going to create it in your own party.

[saigon68]

187. KICK

[petepillow]

3. that's one way to pay for a $400 toilet seat... nt

[truebrit71]

4. Democrats are sponsoring this?

First Hilly goes ape over GTA and now this?

Will the real Democrats please stand up??

[HuckleB]

5. Of course.

Most Internet porn users are Republicans. Dems don't need it like those poor souls do.

;)

[mongo]

9. Enjoyment of adult entertainment

knows no party lines.

[HuckleB]

59. Hmm.

How can one enjoy anything when everything is so very serious?

:shrug:

[seriousstan]

45. An amazing place the DU has turned into lately...........Dems against porn

Support of the SCOTUS ruling on eminent domain, support of Hillary dictating what I can watch or play in my own house.

While I am a Catholic and am much more conservative than many in here, I have always been in the Dem. party because I believed the right to be left alone in my own home.

WTF?? I couldn't believe it when 2 moron "Dems" in New Jersey wanted to ban smoking in my own car and many here supported the law.

You want porn........FUCK THE MOMMY_MAY_I STATE!!

[jmaier]

51. You're being left alone

Having to verify age isn't ridiculous -- it's done in every nonline venue when one wants to purchase adult products. It's hardly a major issue to be addressed but it isn't an outrageous one.

[Mister Mark]

53. I would be alright with age verifications

Except for the fact that the internet is a worldwide medium. You could only verify ages for American customers.

[Megahurtz]

115. So what about all of the

children in the world being kidnapped and forced into prostitution?

What about the "age verification" for that?

[Mister Mark]

128. That's not the point of this bill

It's about verifying the age of a customer who wants to access an American website that contains adult entertainment.

[Megahurtz]

169. I know but,

I just thought I'd throw that in there.

Like they really care about kids watching porn on the internet! (give me a break):eyes:

They don't concentrate on the real problem of underage kids working in porn and prostitution,
so that's why I think that they're full of shit on this one.

[mongo]

135. This bill won't do anything to alieve child prostitution

Maybe congress would be better off concentrating their efforts elsewhere.

[Megahurtz]

168. Unfortunately that's true, and

they should concentrate their efforts elsewhere.

I think the point of this bill is actually the beginning of cutting our rights off for something else.

They sucker all the naive Fundamentalist-minded parents into thinking that "they care" to help them get it passed, then they start clamping down on the rest of our rights.

This Administration is not to be trusted.
There's always some sneakey, underhanded reason for what they do.

[mongo]

54. I don't have a problem with age verification for actual hard core porn

But what about sites specifically geared to teen sexual education?

I suppose we can't let anything that contradicts the abstinence only sex education they're getting in public school exist.

[Mister Mark]

57. That's not what the bill is about

The bill targets sites that contain material covered by 2257 legislation. An educational site is highly unlikely to contain such material.

[boddhi]

61. until Roe v Wade goes down

and sites in the states where abortion is still legal are blocked because of federal or state restrictions

first grand theft auto and now this - this must be the way Dem's think they can show their version of family values

[sendero]

55. That may not be..

.... but a 25% tax is. Name another service/product that is taxed at that level by the federal govt.

[sui generis]

119. yes but what is this 25% excise tax?

that's the real sin here

[HuckleB]

60. Mommy blah state blah blah mother blah hubbard cliche blah blah blah.

:rofl:

Democracy is messy and ambiguous, and a great definition of maturity is the ability to handle ambiguity. Of course, I think maturity also demands the ability to laugh, but what do I know?

:shrug:

[smb]

85. Don't Mistake The Fringe For The Garment

Support of the SCOTUS ruling on eminent domain, support of Hillary dictating what I can watch or play in my own house.

Actually, from what I see it's only a few misguided posters supporting the Big Brother issue on either issue.

That said, the Democrats have a serious problem if their elected officials are stupid enough to try this nanny-state Pubbie-lite approach. They won't win any votes (why vote for Pubbie-lite when you can vote for the real AmeriTaliban thing?), and they'll drive away part of their natural base.

[Zenlitened]

110. Well said.

:thumbsup:

[PDXWoman]

189. I'm a dem

And I am in support of this. We need to protect our children.

[Mister Mark]

6. Hogwash

Blanche Lincoln - a true patriot. :patriot: :sarcasm:

This is an imaginary problem created by insecure adults who are uninformed about human sexuality. Has there been even one legitimate study to find out if adult entertainment has a "harmful effect" on people under 18 years old?

I think the answer would be "no".

[mongo]

11. And you would be correct n/t

[Roland99]

18. Welcome to DU, Mister Mark!

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lvx35]

8. We don't want more authoritarian government!!!

We want the government doing LESS to control our lives domestically, not more. These fools.

[lvx35]

10. What this is really about: The great American firewall.

This issue is very dangerous to the first amendment BTW. ITS NOT ABOUT PORN. The simple fact is that most big porn sites are hosted off shore, to get around laws. American legislation will have no effect their, and this tax will drive the remaining porn offshores. The main thing this will do is create a new problem of "foreign porn invading". This will INEVITABLY lead to legislation calling for a great firewall of america, which, like the "great firewall of China", will control all incoming and outgoing connections. Be aware!

[Zhade]

50. Fascinating. You may be right.

Censorship, anyone?

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

157. Spam. Porn. Viruses. Identity theft. All convenient excuses to clamp down.

Censorship. Intrusive monitoring. Digital rights management. The government has done little about spam, porn, viruses or identity theft because they want people so fed up that they can cram any restrictive legislation through that they want.

Microsoft has long been in bed with this government. It practically CREATED most of these problems through years of neglect and willfully or maliciously crappy programming. Remember the "NSA_Key" (www.nsclean.com/nsakey.html; http://cryptome.org/nsakey-ms-dc.htm)?

[Mister Mark]

12. Where's Hillary?

I'm almost shocked that she didn't sign up to cosponsor this. The Repugs will say, "Ya see?! Hillary is on the side of the PORNOGRAPHERS!"

[mongo]

13. What will this do to non-porn sites about sexuality

Teen sex educational sites - gone
GLBT educational sites - gone
BDSM educational sites - gone

But they would never go after these, right? Just the evil pornographers.

[RoyGBiv]

21. Of course ...

They really are just trying to protect the children. Can't you see that?

:sarcasm:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

14. Newsflash, pro-censorship Dems:

The "values voters" will NEVER vote for you, no matter what you do. Get back to the real fucking issues.

[bspence]

123. here, here n/t

[Generator]

15. There goes the hubby's "slush fund"

[renaissanceguy]

16. And some folks on here want Lincoln to be president...

Let parents do their job, DLCers. It's not the government's job to babysit. If parents don't want their kids looking at porn, let them install filters. Don't inconvenience us adults because some preteens get horny and their parents don't care.

[RoyGBiv]

17. Interesting problem ...

This is going to be bad.

Many, if not most, of the worst offenders of "pushing porn in children's faces" aren't American companies, meaning this law doesn't apply to them. (I actually believe this whole "protect the children" thing is just another canard that lets politicians seem moral, but I digress.) Most child pornography, for example, comes from Russia or the Ukraine, and while it is of course already illegal to access it, stopping it entirely, or even curbing it, is problematic without the intervention of foreign governments. Foreign governments, for some weird reason, just haven't been all that willing to cooperate with the US on much lately. Hmmm ...

And so, with this law, if I understand its provisions correctly, porn producers in the US, who already are required by law to adhere to certain standards in their advertising, will be facing further restrictions, which will likely have just as much an impact on "protecting children" as current laws, i.e. not much. In addition, this will in effect create more business for these foreign owned companies and individuals who are not bound by US law, and in some cases have no expectation of prosecution even if their activities violate their own local laws. Porn spamming in Russia, for example, is a mob business. People trying to curtail it have died, recently in fact, but I can't find the story at the moment.

My question becomes how does this get enforced? And that leads into questions about violations of 1st Amendment protections generally and open access to information through the Internet specifically. Will ISP's, for example, be required to block access to domains that do not abide by the law and further will domains in foreign countries be block, perhaps up to the point of blocking those countries entirely. It could be come a nightmare on several levels, and I might also add that it could move us even further toward emulating tactics used in China to control the flow of information.

In short ... slippery slope.

The tax thing I support in theory. Tax the hell out of it if you can find a way to do it efficiently and fairly, but the age verification thing, which is not as easy as some like to make it sound, can lead in several dangerous directions.

[mongo]

25. A tax based on the content of speech

would be unconstitutional. That portion of the law will not hold up in the courts.

[RoyGBiv]

27. Good point ...

I'm ashamed to say that did not occur to me.

I was thinking in terms of a broader application to various businesses regardless of content, but after your comment, I now see this would be difficult to apply equitably.

[TrogL]

96. I thought the guy that died WAS a porn spammer

[SidDithers]

126. Nope, he ran an English Language learning center...nt

Sid

[RoyGBiv]

152. Could be right ...

As I said, I couldn't find the story and probably am mis-remembering it.

[Mister Mark]

19. MSNBC should be ashamed

They cite a ridiculous study in their headline that says "top consumers of porn are between 12 and 17 years old".

Does any rational person really believe that?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8730737/

[RoyGBiv]

20. More to the point ...

Does anyone actually *know* that?

I think not.

[Mister Mark]

23. n/t

[Yupster]

62. Don't know about the top, but

when I was 14, I was an expert on every National Geographic and even which magazines had lingerie ads. A Playboy picture that someone snuck to school was a rare strike of gold.

I can only imagine were I 14 today. You bet I'd be a major consumer of porn, and there's no way parents would be able to stop me. If I didn't have a computer at my house, a very popular friend would have one.

If you have access to movies based on age, why not internet porn?

I guess I don't see the outrage, maybe because I do have a son.

On the other hand, from what teachers are telling me, 14 year old boys have a lot more access to the real thing today than what we had back then. Maybe they don't have the same interest in pictures that I had.

[Obamarama]

74. "I was 18 before I knew that not all naked women hold spears"

That was a line from one of David Brenner's old schticks, talking about being a horny young man looking through National Geographic. Your post reminded me of that line.

[aaronnyc]

113. I believe it

Who is more likely to look at internet porn than a teenage boy? Kids at the age have most hormones and the least sex - I would expect that the vast majority of them who have internet access look at porn. Do you think they wait until they are 18 and legal before they first view this stuff?

[Mister Mark]

129. explain, please

So, you think that kids between 12 and 17 not only access adult sites more than everyone over 18, but also have the credit cards to do it?!

[Alcibiades]

132. You don't need a credit card to get great porn!

There are lots of top-quality sites with no age verification whatsoever!

[Mister Mark]

134. well then...

This potential legislation is even MORE pointless, if that's the case.

[The Straight Story]

148. Just do a google image search on a 'porn' type word

lots of free pics - will google have to verify age to scour the web for images??? Hmmmmmm....

[wli]

22. pure fascism

It's another way to get their hooks into the net to enforce laws etc. and of course an easy method for selective enforcement.

[Mister Mark]

24. Third Way

This legislation seems to be propped up by a group called Third Way that claims to be "helping" progressive candidates in red states:

"Third Way develops policy and communications products to help senators and other progressive leaders better advance their values in red states and counties where progressive ideas have lost resonance."

http://www.third-way.com/

Is anyone familiar with this organization?

[Mister Mark]

26. Just found this

"Several democratic lawmakers went on the offensive Wednesday to protect children from internet pornography. They're also trying to take the moral high ground away from conservative Republicans."

"A group of Democratic lawmakers expressed outrage and revealed new laws to regulate internet porn."

"As evidence of the growing problem, the senators quoted a position paper produced by a new Washington group called Third Way."

http://www.14wfie.com/Global/story.asp?S=3649257&nav=3w6oceqi

[Lars39]

31. Third Way = New Democrats

DLC creation to meld the two parties, resulting in what looks like 2 parties, but is actually one for all intents and purposes.

[lvx35]

33. We could get more republican voters if we did their work for them!

That's all it takes!!! Morons.

[Voltaire99]

43. It's the Hillary-Lieberman-Kerry style Dems.

In other words, the corporate sell-outs.

First it was rock music they scorned. Then it was Hollywood. Now it's video games and porn.

Personal freedom? Free speech? Live and let live?

Fuck that: they'll sacrifice any principle if it translates into campaign contributions and votes from the right.

I despise that crowd and shall never, ever vote for one of them again.

[wuushew]

28. 8 out of 9 Senators are members of the DLC

Jim Aldinger, Council Member, Manhattan Beach CA
Patrice Arent, State Senator, UT
David Aronberg, State Senator, FL
Toni Atkins, City Councilmember, San Diego CA
Loranne Ausley, State Representative, FL
Som Baccam, School Board Member, Des Moines IA
Brian Baird, U.S. Representative, WA
Thurbert Baker, State Attorney General, GA
Brenda Barger, Mayor, Watertown, SD
Gonzalo Barrientos, State Senator, TX
Viola Baskerville, State Delegate, VA
Alan C. Bates, State Senator, OR
Max Baucus, U.S. Senator, MT
Evan Bayh, U.S. Senator, IN
Melissa Bean, United States Representative, IL
Ralph Becker, State Representative, UT
James Bennett, City Council, St. Petersberg FL
Shelley Berkley, U.S. Representative, NV
Ethan Berkowitz, House Democratic Leader, AK
Barbara Blanchard, County Legislator, Tompkins County NY
Patrica M. Blevins, State Senator, DE
Marty Block, Community College Trustee, San Diego CA
Alice Borodkin, State Representative, CO
Lisa Boscola, State Senator, PA
Betty Boyd, State Representative, CO
David Braddock, State Representative, OK
Daniel Brady, State Senator, OH
Zach Brandon, City Councilmember, Madison WI
Bob Brink, Delegate, VA
Matt Brown, Secretary of State, RI
Don Brown, Jr., City Councilman, Louisville, CO
Polly Bukta, State Representative, IA
Cruz M. Bustamante, Lieutenant Governor, CA
Robert Butkin, State Treasurer, OK
Thomas Campbell, State Delegate, WV
Jane Campbell, Mayor, Cleveland OH
Roberto Canchola, Superintendent of Schools, Santa Cruz Co., AZ
Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator, WA
Lois Capps, U.S. Representative, CA
Twanda Carlisle, Council Member, Pittsburgh PA
Russ Carnahan, U.S. Representative, MO
Tom Carper, U.S. Senator, DE
Adolfo Carrion, Borough President, Bronx NY
Terrance D. Carroll, State Representative, CO
Karen R. Carter, State Representative, LA
Ed Case, U.S. Representative, HI
Bill Cegelka, City Council Member, Lexington KY
Ben Chandler, U.S. Representative, KY
Ken Cheuvront, State Senator, AZ
Carol Chumney, Council Member, City of Memphis TN
Paul Clark, Town Supervisor, West Seneca NY
Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator, NY
Martha Coakley, District Attorney, Middlesex County MA
Mark Cohen, State Representative, PA
Steve Cohn, City Councilmember, Sacramento CA
Michael Coleman, Mayor, Columbus, OH
Fran Coleman, State Representative, CO
Kent Conrad, U.S. Senator, ND
Christopher Coons, Council President, New Castle Co., DE
Roy A. Cooper III, Attorney General, NC
Lou Correa, Supervisor, Orange County CA
Cathy Cox, Secretary of State, GA
Joseph Crowley, U.S. Representative, NY
J. Joseph Curran, State Attorney General, MD
Lou D'Allesandro, State Senator, NH
Ruth Damsker, County Commissioner, Montgomery Co., PA
Swati Dandekar, State Representative, IA
Jim Davis, U.S. Representative, FL
Ray Davis, Registrar, Stafford County VA
Artur Davis, U.S. Representative, AL
Susan Davis, U.S. Representative, CA
Sergio De Leon, Constable, Tarrant County TX
Ryan Deckert, State Senator, OR
Rocky Delgadillo, City Attorney, Los Angeles, CA
Christopher Dodd, U.S. Senator, CT
Byron Dorgan, U.S. Senator, ND
Jim Doyle, Governor, WI
Doug Duncan, County Executive, Montgomery County MD
Joseph Dunn, State Senator, CA
Michael Easley, Governor, NC
Doug Echols, Mayor, Rock Hill SC
W.A. Drew Edmondson, State Attorney General, OK
Rahm Emanuel, U.S. Representative, IL
Eliot Engel, U.S. Representative, NY
Bob Etheridge, U.S. Representative, NC
Robert Faucheux, State Representative, LA
Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, CA
John Fernandez, Mayor, Bloomington IN
Barry R. Finegold, State Representative, MA
Eric Fingerhut, State Senator, OH
Joan Fitz-Gerald, State Senator, CO
Michael L. Fitzgerald, State Treasurer, IA
Jamie Fleet, City Councilman, Gettysburg PA
Elizabeth G. Flores, Mayor, Laredo, TX
Dean Florez, State Assemblymember, CA
Romanie Foege, State Representative, IA
Harold Ford, Jr. , U.S. Representative, TN
Dan B. Frankel, State Representative, PA
Shirley Franklin, Mayor, Atlanta GA
John A. Fritchey, State Representative, IL
Douglas F. Gansler, State's Attorney for Montgomery Co., MD
Michael Garcia, State Representative, CO
Steven A. Geller, State Senator, FL
Allen Jay Gerson, Council Member, New York City NY
Gabrielle Giffords, State Senator, AZ
Glen D. Gilmore, Mayor, Hamilton NJ
Michael Golden, Borough Council Member, Jenkintown PA
Ron Gonzales, Mayor, San Jose, CA
Charlie Gonzalez, United States Representative, TX
Phil Gordon, Mayor, Phoenix AZ
Ken Gordon, State Senator, CO
Jennifer Granholm, Governor, MI
Darlene Green, City Comptroller, St. Louis, MO
Ron L. Greenstein, State Representative, FL
James S. Gregory, City Councilman, Bethlehem, PA
Wendy Greuel, City Council, Los Angeles CA
Daniel Grimes, City Council, Goshen IN
Peter C. Groff, State Representative, CO
Daniel Grossman, State Senator, CO
Ken Guin, Majority Leader, AL
Bob Hagedorn, State Senator, CO
Karen Hale, State Senator, UT
DeAnna Hanna, State Senator, CO
Jane Harman, U.S. Representative, CA
Jeff Harris, State Representative, MO
Patrick Henry Hays, Mayor, North Little Rock, AR
Martin J. Heft, First Selectman, Chester CT
Robert Henriquez, State Representative, FL
Stephanie Herseth, U.S. Representative, SD
Thomas Hickner, County Executive, Bay County, MI
Brian Higgins, U.S. Representative, NY
Richard Hildreth, Mayor, Pacific WA
Debra Hilstrom, State Representative, MN
Rush Holt, U.S. Representative, NJ
Helen Holton, City Council Member, Baltimore, MD
Darlene Hooley, U.S. Representative, OR
Sam Hoyt, State Assemblymember, NY
Dave Hunt, State Representative, OR
Ross Hunter, State Representative, WA
Geri Huser, State Representative, IA
Daniel W. Hynes, State Comptroller, IL
Jay Inslee, U.S. Representative, WA
Thomas Irvin, Commissioner of Agriculture, GA
Steve Israel, U.S. Representative, NY
Michael Jackson, State Representative, LA
Gilda Z. Jacobs, State Senator, MI
Wendy Jaquet, State House Minority Leader, ID
Nicholas Jellins, Mayor Prom Tem, Menlo Park, CA
Evan Jenkins, State Senator, WV
Douglas Jennings Jr., House Democratic Leader, SC
Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator, SD
Robin Johnson, Alderman, Monmouth IL
Donald Jones, Council Member, Jefferson Parish LA
Patty Judge, Secretary of Agriculture, IA
Charlie Justice, State Representative, FL
Tim Kaine, Lieutenant Governor, VA
Steve Kelley, Senate Majority Whip, MN
Randy Kelly, Mayor, St. Paul, MN
John Kerry, U.S. Senator, MA
Lynn Kessler, State House Democratic Leader, WA
Kwame Kilpatrick, Mayor, Detroit, MI
Ron Kind, U.S. Representative, WI
Victor King, Trustee, Glendale, CA
Herb Kohl, U.S. Senator, WI
Richard Kriseman, City Council Chairman, St. Petersburg, FL
Annie Kuether, State Representative, KS
Rosalind Kurita, State Senator, TN
Eric LaFleur, State Representative, LA
Mary Landrieu, U.S. Senator, LA
Leah Landrum Taylor, Assistant Minority Leader, AZ
Patricia Lantz, State Representative, WA
Rick Larsen, U.S. Representative, WA
John Larson, U.S. Representative, CT
Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator, CT
Blanche Lincoln, U.S. Senator, AR
David Lindenmuth, Councilman, Woodstown Borough NJ
Duane E. Little, Assessor, Shoshone Co., ID
Alice Madden, State Representative, CO
Louis Magazzu, Freeholder, Cumberland County NJ
Dannel P. Malloy, Mayor, Stamford, CT
Matthew Mangino, District Attorney, Lawrence Co., PA
Jennifer Mann, State Representative, PA
Steve Marchand, City Councilman, Portsmouth NH
Jack Markell, State Treasurer, DE
Lisa Tessier Marrache, State Representative, ME
Rosemary Marshall, State Representative, CO
Barbara Matthews, Assembly Member, Tracy CA
Carolyn McCarthy, U.S. Representative, NY
Kevin McCarthy, State Representative, IA
Kevin McCarthy, State Representative, IL
Kenneth McClintock, State Senator, PR
Bill McConico, State Representative, MI
Matt McCoy, State Senator, IA
Sharon McDonald, Commissioner of Revenue, Norfolk, VA
Mike McIntyre, U.S. Representative, NC
Gregory Meeks, U.S. Representative, NY
Charlie Melancon, United States Representative, LA
Jules Mermelstein, Township Commissioner, Upper Dublin, PA
Dolores Mertz, State Representative, IA
Juanita Millender-McDonald, U.S. Representative, CA
Jonathan Miller, State Treasurer, KY
Tom Miller, Attorney General, IA
Doug Milliken, Treasurer, Centennial CO
Ruth Ann Minner, Governor, DE
Keiffer Mitchell, Jr., City Councilman, Baltimore, MD
Dennis Moore, U.S. Representative, KS
Richard H. Moore, State Treasurer, NC
Richard Moore, State Senator, MA
Jim Moran, U.S. Representative, VA
Karen Morgan, State Representative, UT
John Morrison, State Auditor, MT
Eva Moskowitz, City Council Member, New York City, NY
Keith Mulvihill, Commissioner, Mt. Lebanon PA
Charles A. Murphy, State Representative, MA
Pat Murphy, State Representative, IA
Ed Murray, State Representative, WA
Therese Murray, State Senator, MA
Janet Napolitano, Governor, AZ
Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator, FL
Ben Nelson, U.S. Senator, NE
Gavin C. Newsom, Mayor, San Francisco CA
Michael Nutter, City Councilman, Philadelphia, PA
Martin O'Malley, Mayor, Baltimore, MD
Michael A. O'Pake, State Senator, PA
Marc R. Pacheco, State Senator, MA
Alex Padilla, City Councilman, Los Angeles, CA
Alfred Park, State Representative, NM
Sally Pederson, Lieutenant Governor, IA
William Peduto, City Councilmember, Pittsburgh PA
David Pepper, City Council, Cincinnati OH
Beverly Perdue, Lieutenant Governor, NC
Eddie Perez, Mayor, Hartford CT
Scott Peters, City Councilman, San Diego, CA
Janet Petersen, State Representative, IA
Bart Peterson, Mayor, Indianapolis IN
Gregory Pitoniak, Mayor, Taylor, MI
Jeffrey Plale, State Senator, WI
Tom Plant, State Representative, CO
Charles Potter, Council Member, Wilmington DE
Debra Powell, Mayor, East St. Louis, IL
David Price, U.S. Representative, NC
Mark Pryor, U.S. Senator, AR
Brian Quirk, State Representative, IA
David Ragucci, Mayor, Everett, MA
Aaron Reardon, Snohomish County Executive, WA
Stephen Reed, Mayor, Harrisburg, PA
Ed Rendell, Governor, PA
Ann H. Rest, State Senator, MN
Joe Rice, Mayor, Glendale, CO
Graham Richard, Mayor, Fort Wayne, IN
John Richardson, State Representative, ME
Bill Richardson, Governor, NM
Joe Riley, Mayor, Charleston SC
Andrew Romanoff, State Representative,, CO
T.J. Rooney, State Representative, PA
Samuel Rosenberg, State Delegate, MD
Loretta Sanchez, U.S. Representative, CA
Sharon Sanders Brooks, State Representative, MO
Adam B. Schiff, U.S. Representative, CA
Jefferey Schoenberg, State Senator, IL
Allyson Schwartz, U.S. Representative, PA
Timothy Scott, Council Member, Carlisle Borough PA
David Scott, U.S. Representative, GA
Kathleen Sebelius, Governor, KS
Eugene M. Sellers, Vermillion Parish Engineer, Lafayette, LA
James Shapiro, City Representative, Stamford, CT
Kenneth Shetter, Mayor, Burleson TX
Ron Sims, County Executive, King County, WA
Scott Slifka, Mayor, West Hartford CT
Adam Smith, U.S. Representative, WA
Malcolm A. Smith, State Senator, NY
James Smith, House Democratic Leader, SC
Rod Smith, State Senator, FL
Vic Snyder, United States Representative, AR
Eleanor Sobel, State Representative, FL
Andrew Spano, County Executive, Westchester Co., NY
Carol Spielman, County Board Member, Lake County IL
Eliot Spitzer, State Attorney General, NY
Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Senator, MI
Greg Stanton, City Councilman, Phoenix, AZ
Larry Stone, Assessor, Santa Clara County, CA
Peter Sullivan, State Representative, NH
Harvey D. Tallackson, State Senator, ND
Abel J. Tapia, State Representative, CO
Ellen Tauscher, U.S. Representative, CA
Charleta B. Tavares, City Council Member, Columbus, OH
Mark Taylor, Lieutenant Governor, GA
Michael L. Thurmond, State Labor Commissioner, GA
Lois Tochtrop, State Representative, CO
Charles F. Tooley, Mayor, Billings, MT
Tom Udall, U.S. Representative, NM
John Unger II, State Senator, WV
George Van Til, Surveyor, Lake County IN
Juan Vargas, State Assemblymember, CA
Jennifer Veiga, State Representative, CO
Val Vigil, State Representative, CO
Michael Villarreal, State Representative, TX
Tom Vilsack, Governor, IA
Peter Voros, Mayor, Pittsgrove Township NJ
Lewis J. Wallace, State Representative, CT
Mark Warner, Governor, VA
Steven Warnstadt, State Representative, IA
Jonathan Weinzapfel, State Representative, IN
Jack Weiss, City Council, Los Angeles CA
Peggy M. Welch, State Representative, IN
Kenneth Welch, County Commissioner, Pinnellas County FL
Steve Westly, State Controller, CA
Michael J. Wildes, Mayor, Englewood NJ
Anthony Williams, Mayor, Washington, DC
Earnest Williams, City Councilman, St. Petersburg, FL
Suzanne Williams, State Representative, CO
Constance Williams, State Senator, PA
Sue Windels, State Senator, CO
Philip Wise, State Representative, IA
David Wu, U.S. Representative, OR
Barbara Yamrick, Regional Tranportation District Director, Aurora CO
David Yassky, City Councilmember, Brooklyn NY
Caprice Young, President of the Board of LAUSD, Los Angeles CA


http://www.dlc.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm?viewAll=1


Check this out, the DLC's own magazine blasts the ACLU!

Unfortunately, rather than siding with parents in their fight to protect their children, cultural liberals all too often view any efforts to control Internet content -- even if only to provide parents with tools like Internet content filters -- as censorship. In their ideological zeal to fight any kind of government (or corporate) influence of content, liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brand anyone who raises this issue as an enemy of free speech or a religious fanatic. In their anything-is-OK belief (as long as things are not "politically incorrect"), the cultural left is reluctant even to pass judgment on what is and is not appropriate content, be it violent, sexual, or otherwise. As the liberal The American Prospect states in an article arguing against Internet filters, "filth is in the eye of the beholder."

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=3556&kaid=114&subid=144

[kath]

95. Whoa- the fokkin' DLC blasting the ACLU - that's really too much to take!

Jeebus.

[Megahurtz]

170. Holy Shit!

:o My speed reading from Catholic School didn't even help me on that one!

[trapper914]

188. Didn't I hear on Air America...

...how Joe Lieberman, and no doubt some of the others on that list, receive campaign money from the porn industry? Whaddya wanna bet they don't get that $$$ again?

Also, I wouldn't have a problem with the age verification requirement, but there needs to be a way to satify it without giving credit card information or a SSN online. As it is now, the government is inviting identity theft.

[Mister Mark]

29. and here they are today

From CBS News:

[5thGenDemocrat]

58. Let time I saw an expression like Blanche has there

It was on a rubber blow-up doll.
John
Just saying.

[Mister Mark]

66. LOL!

That's great! :rofl:

[mrdmk]

155. What a bunch of sad mugs. Where did you get the pic?

Further more are these people serious?

Let me give you one piece of advice here, do not get caught with your fly down!

[Mister Mark]

164. They need to watch more porn

They might look a little happier. :)

[saigon68]

173. Hey there's the LIMP LOSERMANN

or is it the LOSER LIMPMANN?

What a pathetic TURD he is.

[sonicx]

30. who buys internet porn anyway?

get it free from google and yahoo.

[Mister Mark]

34. who buys?

Isn't that a stupid question, really? Let me assure you...MILLIONS of people are buying adult entertainment on the internet.

[sonicx]

35. did you read the rest of my post?

[Mister Mark]

39. Yes I did

But the flippant tone of your post suggests that this isn't really anything we need to be concerned about, and if that is how you feel, I strongly disagree with you.

[sonicx]

41. no, it's not how i feel.

guess you can't take a joke.

[Mister Mark]

42. Of course I can take a joke

I'm just wound up about this proposed bill, and I think most of the others here are as well.

[lvx35]

37. This will AFFECT FREE PORN.

This will mandate that ALL porn be commercialized through age verification systems.

[Teaser]

44. offshore?

nt

[lvx35]

48. I think not, but this is a great threat...

see my post above:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1659205&mesg_id=1659238

[Baclava]

32. The final straw.....If this fucks up my free porn...

I'm moving to Canada!

[lvx35]

36. If they are serious about large scale government control of the Internet..

They are going to get FUCKED by their own party.

[lvx35]

38. What the hell is wrong with these people?

Focusing on porn? Making a bg issue over SEXUALITY, after the cigar and the stain on the dress!?!? PURE insanity. The only smart move to make is advocating that the government should get the hell away from our individual sexuality, a stance which redeems Bill Clinton's persecution, and a lot of people would back up. Move the government AWAY from sexual fixation, not towards it.

[Voltaire99]

40. Wha--? They'll tax my porn when they pry it from my cold, dying grip!

Or something like that. ;-)

Actually, as porn is really the last lively US industry apart from the federally-subsidized arms merchants, taxing it makes all the sense in the world. Think of all the revenue we can generate on the backs of masturbating family-values Christians!

Fear not, my friends. Take the, er, long view: the great suburban jerk-o-rama can pay off our national debt.

[lvx35]

52. hehehe. More like my hot sticky wet grip!

I think that's a little more threatening to be frank! ;)

But I don't think its a good idea. Increasing government control over anything is a foolish idea while the repubs control the government...And if you're paying attention, you should be wary of ANY attempt to control the Internet. If the government had even a fraction of the control that they have over the MSM, the net will be much worse for it.

[Voltaire99]

143. Yes, I fully agree with you

It's a wretched idea. I just couldn't resist sarcasm. ;-)

To your two good points, I would also add that this initiative represents a critical misunderstanding of the electorate. The DLC Dems think they'll appeal to NASCAR Murrica if they pander by mentioning God a lot, genuflecting to the military, downplaying abortion, criticizing video games and taxing porn.

Imbeciles: they're only alienating anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman while proving again to the GOP how fungible and principle-free they are.

[Deja Q]

46. 9 Republicans, you say?

I think I'll stick to local shops then.

[dweller]

47. first, a simple question

who is being taxed, the producer or the purchaser?

b/c in the long run, it will be the purchaser who will pay the extra, since the producer will just raise the price if taxed.

i'm guessing it is the latter, purchaser.

i mean, after all *moron has cut taxes to the wealthiest in our nation, there's no way he's going to raise it through a porn tax. :shrug:

eyes wide shut comes to mind.
dp

[Mister Mark]

49. The tax would be on the providers

The producer could raise the tax on the customer, but that would be foolish, considering the internet is worldwide and no other country would have a tax such as this.

[sui generis]

121. it's as ridiculous as any other "sin" tax

tax everyone according to their ability to pay - not just select groups of people.

The affront is that they even "went there" on this topic.

Getting cigarette and alcohol taxes to pay for state schools is all fine and dandy until people stop buying cigarettes and alcohol, or there's a slump in cigarette and alcohol sales because some new designer drug has come along or people change their consumption habits or whatever.

Sin taxes are just plain bad economic policy because the secondary effects create dependencies on consumption that are more sensitive to changes in consumer pricing and subsequently consumer demand.

[smb]

89. Distinction Without A Difference

first, a simple question who is being taxed, the producer or the purchaser?

The purchaser is going to pay it, no matter where the tax is nominally applied -- where else does the money ultimately come from?

[msongs]

56. repubs will vote NO...they are against taxes are they not????? eom

[fujiyama]

63. Who the hell gets to decide what constitutes "porn"?

Does erotic photography and art fall into pornopgraphy? What about erotic stories and writing?

This is bothersome on many levels. The idea of giving the government more power to control the internet is very distrubing. At what point does our own internet end up like China's, regulated to the extreme, where a national firewall blocks sites the government deems unseemly? This is the last bastion of free exchange left.

The SC was wise enough to strike down (unanimously that too) the Communications Decency Act signed into law by Clinton. Let's hope the court is smart enough to do the same this time because I have no doubt this will be challenged.

[sadiesworld]

80. Determining what constitutes porn isn't exactly a new issue.

The public library and the adult bookstore have never offered the same materials.

[CoffeeCat]

64. I'm against this, because it caters to lazy parents who want scapegoats...

I hate Internet porn--for many reasons.

I'd like to see it gone from the world.

However, I'm against this legislation because I'm sick of lazy-ass parents blaming porn, video games and television for their woes.

Parents need to do their jobs. They need to spend time with their children--and develop close relationships with their kids--so they know what's going on with their kids. In addition, if parents foster quality relationships with their kids--their kids will come to them and discuss what they see/hear--and kids will be more likely to, at the very least, listen to their parents' input.

I'm so tired of these holier-than-thou parents who spend more time commuting to work--than they do with their kids every day. They're the ones who are so quick to come up with ridiculous "Tax the porn! legislation.

Parents do your job and you won't need the government to solve your child-rearing problems---with really have nothing to do with video games, porn, Sponge Bob cartoons or how Christina Aguilera dresses!

[Megahurtz]

116. self delete.

[Alcibiades]

133. Hear, hear!

Here's an idea, let's watch our children.

Why do conservatives-of whatever party-complain about the nanny state, but keep making it bigger? A 25% tax on porn will be a big incentive for someone to start a black market.

[uncle ray]

65. one thing about this nobody seems to notice/care about

is that "age verification" does nothing that the name implies. all the age-varification services do is tie the person browsing porn to a credit card owner. so at a casual glance, there is no way for a form on a website to determine the age of the user. the obvious problem is that a minor can easily reigster with the verification service and use it for some time before the fradualent charge is noticed, but the deeper issue, is that the purpose of this is to tie browsing habits to a specific person! it's all about reading peoples sexual habits and peversions, and using that information "for the public good"...ie. busting innocent wankers who happen to have a fetish a little too close to, say child porn, before they commit a crime.

just imagine, if you replaced every mention of "porn sites" with "political sites".

[Mister Mark]

67. National ID

If we have a national ID card someday, it could be used for age verification quite easily.

What's wrong - you mean you wouldn't want the government to know that you're visiting adult websites? Oh - come on - they'd NEVER use that information in a nefarious manner. :sarcasm:

[blogslut]

69. Also

VISA wants nothing to do with age verification as far as the adult Internet. At least, that's what they told us in my business when they began to apply higher fees.

[shugah]

150. exactly!

there are sites all over the internet, non-porn as well as porn that consider a CC# so-called "age verification". i'm sure the porn providers would actually be thrilled if this passes since most of the sites that need age verification are all about getting the CC# so they can charge you from month to month after your free trial when you don't cancel. i would guess that porn sites are much the same as AOL and free credit report sites and such in that respect.

and i also agree re: being able to track what people are buying. they do it at grocery stores with those "preferred customer" cards you have to swipe to get the sale prices. there are too many people in the repub party that are already too concerned about what kind of S-E-X other people have - no way do i think there would be any privacy or anonymity allowed with this bill! it's true you have to verify your age if you buy at a brick and mortar, but at least there you can flash your license and pay cash.

[Gelliebeans]

68. With chimpy shredding docs

and unka dick hiding, these nine dipshits couldn't find MORE IMPORTANT legislation to pursue. :eyes:

[Eugene]

70. The porn tax is a Trojan horse.

It sets up a tax collection and enforcement scheme
for online sales. Don't be surprised when this
new tax regime is expanded to non-porn web commerce,
perhaps to promote compliance on state sales taxes.

[annabanana]

86. (by George, he's GOT it)

You're right! This will set up the architecture for future online tax collections.

[tmorelli415]

71. We ought to SUPPORT this! This is how *legalized* porn is *kept* legal!

I don't see what's bad about verifying age to ensure that children aren't accessing porn. If you're an adult, you've got nothing to worry about. Children aren't emotionally mature enough to make good decisions about sex. I don't care what anyone says about 'people who aren't comfortable with their sexuality' - it is *not* healthy for children to watch adults have sex for entertainment, or to browse online stores full of dildoes and sex toys.

It is not about 'lazy parents'! Yes, parents have a responsibility to police their children, but sadly too many of them don't. Children who have 'lazy parents' deserve even more of our sympathy and protection, not less!

I don't see what's bad about a meaningful excise tax on adult entertainment. Nobody *needs* porn - it is a luxury unlike food or shelter. If you're an adult and you want to see porn, you'll just have to share some of the burden of ensuring it is kept legal.

There's no reason taxpayers ought to subsidize the cost of combatting the marketing of porn to children, child pornography and organized crime. The cigarette manufacturers tried to say they didn't market to children, too, but we know they did. How many times each day do you got 'Hot Chicks' and 'Dirty Sluts' spam in your email? Some of that stuff is pretty hardcore, and you know the kids are getting it if you are.

That's the whole idea behind legalizing 'vice': it brings it out into the open where it can be safely regulated by society. Otherwise, it goes underground and we have no control.

Nothing about this is trying to make porn illegal - to the contrary, this is *exactly* how to *keep* it legal! Take a look at countries like The Netherlands and Denmark - they have legal age limits and they have excise taxes on porn that make this tax look like chump change! Go find a Danish or Dutch or German or French or Swedish porn site and see for yourself.

Think, people! Blanche is not in your bedroom here - she's trying to keep your bedroom door shut, that's all. What you do in there behind that door is up to you. Just leave the children out, and take responsibility and remember that FREEDOM is NOT FREE!

This is not a political ploy - it scores no points with Fundies. It is an honest effort to do something right. The offshore sites will still be a problem, but it is not excuse to ignore the problem.

Jeesh! This is about *children* for Christ's sake!

[HuckleB]

72. A very well thought out response.

Your points are well taken.

[dhinojosa]

77. I agree with everything except your last sentence....

Spanking your children will only excite them to go to their favorite porn site. :hi:

But seriously, you are right on everything here. I will disagree though that this isn't a political ploy. I wouldn't necessarily call it ploy though, I would just say that the dems are playing this card well.

[Obamarama]

79. Great post, and I agree. But here is my concern....

And I think it's a LOT of people's concern, and frankly I don't know how we get around it.

I'm all in favor of keeping kids away from porn, especially the really hardcore stuff. And by kids, I mean probably 15 and under.

What my fear is how is the law regulated, and who decides what constitutes pornography? Is it limited to visual communication? What about written? If it is written, what language constitutes porn? If someone describes oral sex using appropriate anatomical terms as opposed to slang, is that acceptable? And if not, why not? And who gets to decide...John Roberts? Antonin Scalia?


Say there's a site that is not sexual in nature, but is a GLBT oriented site dedicated to educating teens who are struggling with their sexual identity. Maybe some straightforward, factual information about how to avoid STD, HIV/AIDS, etc... is discussed.
I can EASILY see some Republican Christo-Fascist wingnut deciding this constitutes pornography. The site is forced to incorporate age verification. Because the site is intended for young adults, and because they can no longer visit the site, the site dies. Score one for the Christo-Fascists.

Maybe you've "saved" 500,000 kids from getting their jollies from looking at tits and dicks while mom and dad are at work. But maybe the 1 gay teen in every 10 teens who commit suicide just hung himself in his room because he couldn't find anywhere safe to turn to on the Internet because asshats like Rick Santorum saw to it that all the sites he COULD have turned that weren't pornagraphic in nature - only pornographic in the minds of Republican Christo-Fascists- to were shut down.

One dead teen so that 500,000 of his peers can't see a tit. Is that worth it? I'm sure that's worth it to the Republican Christo-Fascists, but it's not to me, or you, or any other sane person. To them the only good gay teen is probably a dead gay teen anyway. But I'm going off on a tangent now, so I'll cut to the chase.

The intent of this legislation is good. I beleive that. But I am pretty sure that there is enough gray area there that some Republican Christo-Fascist will try to get their red, white and blue crowbars in there somewhere and try to exert the new law in ways for which it was never intended. That's the issue I have with this law.

[tmorelli415]

84. Pornography is defined by community standards

That is how the court rulings have defined it. But since the Internet crosses stae lines, it is a Federal interstate commerce issue at best. But that argument lost out to the First Amendment under the Supreme Court, and it would be a total reversal of the entire porn legalization for it to change.

Yes, I can see some trying to keep perfectly harmless material censored. I can also see some trying to use porn regulation laws to censor gay and alternative sex materials.

However, as I see it this is regulated as commerce. The credit cards are what is used to verify age. And the tax applies to the purchase of adult items or site memberships. Sites that charge for sex are definitely porn.

If it is a 'sex education' site, then it ought not be charging. And if it is for education purposes, the producers would certainly want to keep children out without adult supervision. So, if a person of legal age wants to access sex education sites and they need to verify age it is not a problem. It someone underage wants to see sex education sites with photographs of sexual acts, then probably ought to check with a parent. If a underage person needs some instruction on sex education and they legitimately are only after education, it seems likely that they can find resources to answer their questions without the need for illustrations.

As to the gay and alternative sex sites, once again if you are an adult you can look at porn. I don't see how this can be extrapolated into an outright ban on gay porn - that is a 'legalization' issue rather than a 'regulation' issue. Outlawing gay or alternative porn would not just be an Internet issue, but an issue of interstate commerce and the courts already tossed that argument out long ago. Either way it is a circle jerk for the courts if they try to get involved: congress can regulate interstate commerce, but not intrastate commerce. There's not way around since State A says porn is ok, an State B says it is not - just log on and look at State A sites. Then what? Stop bandwidth from crossing state lines? How?

[Obamarama]

91. Are you SERIOUS?

First of all, I think you completely misinterpreted my statement.

I don't see how this can be extrapolated into an outright ban on gay porn - that is a 'legalization' issue rather than a 'regulation' issue.

I never tried to extrapolate this as an outright ban on gay porn. I don't even CARE about gay porn. You point out to me in my original post where I even remotely suggested that and I'll take back what I'm about to say: GET YOUR EYES EXAMINED.

If someone underage wants to see sex education sites with photographs of sexual acts, then probably ought to check with a parent.

What? WHAT? Do you really expect some sexually confused teen to ask their parents to sit down and visit a website dicussing homosexuality with them? What planet are you from?

If a underage person needs some instruction on sex education and they legitimately are only after education, it seems likely that they can find resources to answer their questions without the need for illustrations.

That statement, in relation to mine, is pretty much irrelevant. I wasn't referring to sites that had graphic illustrations. In my hypothetical scenario, I clearly articulated that some Republican Christo-Fascist could easily interpret site with gay information for teens as pornographic and shut it down.

Got it now, Rush? Go dump your chum overboard somewhere else buddy, cause I'm not hungry for your bait anymore.

[tmorelli415]

97. "Got it now, Rush? Go dump your chum overboard somewhere else ..."

i don't doubt that someone would love to do exactly what you are saying, and make it impossible for kids to get information. But my point is that it is pretty much impossible to manage. It would have to be through outright bans on certain material, but then it would be a local issue and standards vary.

I didn't say I was in favor of anything like that - I was just explaining that in my opinion it wouldn't matter how much the Right Wingers wanted to control the world, it just wouldn't work.

I'm not sure why you decided to make a personal attack out of your response, but since you did I will, too. As to the issue of the teen who needs information, and can't talk their parents about homosexuality (or whatever sexuality) - I guess I wouldn't know anything about that. Unless you count the first 19 years of my life when i was growing up in a tiny conservative town and pretty much learned to hate myself because I was gay and couldn't tell anyone in the world how I felt!

Sorry, I did use the 'gay porn' example to make my point. I guess it was just the most familiar one I could think of.

I don't need to be lectured by anyone about Christo-Fascists and how they treat people and ideas they don't like. I live with it every f*cking day of my life. I've been fired for being gay. I've had friends disown me because of it. I've had family members stop speaking to me forever because of it. I've been called names far worse than 'Rush', and experienced the fear of knowing your life is in danger when someone uses their religion to attack you.

Maybe you don't think I 'get it' but I'm pretty sure I do. I've been to f*cking Hell and back in my life over issues like this, and I don't deserve to be called 'Rush' and told I ought to 'dump my chum overboard' by someone who is supposedly on my side. I guess I'm just a right wing hack and didn't know it... Don't worry about the insulting name - when the kids scream 'faggot' at you on the playground growing up, you get immune to that sort of thing.

I just don't think I did anything to deserve that kind of response. I guess the subject matter was just a little too close to home for me to ignore it.

[Mister Mark]

102. irrational

As angry as you sound, I don't think I'm going to follow your lead in endorsing this proposed legislation.

[Obamarama]

117. FYI, I'm gay too.

And you're right....you DON'T need to be lectured by anyone about Christo-Fascists. I think we've probably both seen and experienced enough to know what "they" are all about. So, quit sounding like someone who needs to be lectured.

I'm just curious as to why you feel so strongly in favor of the law, without any regard to how it could be contorted and massaged to shutdown something the law was never intended to shut down.

In my original post I admitted I support the basic premise of the law. My only point is before I sign on and say "Yes, I support it and it's a good thing," I need to know what the gray areas are, where the loopholes are. In my post I was merely explaining, via a hypothetical scenario, WHY I had questions about it, and what those questions/concerns were. Not to rehash my original post, but it's true...give these people (Republican Christo-Fascists)an inch and they'll take a whole goddamned mile.

Please, enlighten me as to why I should just blindly accept this law at face value.

[tmorelli415]

125. why i support the law

I think excise taxes work really well. They raise lots of revenue, and they don't hurt anyone because they tax only luxury items.
I also think that porn sites aren't any place for kids.

I totally agree that the Fundies are just salivating at the idea of finding a way to classify legitimate art or sex eduation on the Web as porn and block it. But it really would be impossible because of the nature of the Internet and the SCOTUS ruilings that made porn legal under the First Amendment.
So I guess I'm don't take the threats seriously although I agree that the intent will always be there. I don't think anyone is trying to control people with this law - I think they want the revenue.

Thanks for responding - i hate it when people on here get pissy with each other. we need to stick together.

[Obamarama]

151. See...we DO agree! :-)

First, I couldn't care less about the tax revenue facet of the issue. It seems sort of benign, except for the consumers of Internet porn, but if they're going to tax things like cigarettes, alcohol, etc.. I don't see a problem with porn.

Second, we agree that there should be better safeguards to keep the youngins' away from porn as well.

The only thing we seem to differ on is the potential for the Morality Patrol to abuse the legislation. I seem to think the probability is higer than you do, but then you might know more about the inner legal workings and you could be correct that there's not much chance of that happening. The point is moot, however, since the legislation was passed, so I say lets shake hands and make up.

And yes, I am guilty for "getting pissy", and I offer you my apology. I've had more time than usual to hang around DU for the last few days and the more I read, the more pissed off I get in general. Perhaps I need to take a DU holiday and visit less frequently for a while!

At any rate, I think we understand better now. Olive branch extended...

[Mister Mark]

153. Porn as "sin"

Why do you lump sexually-explicit movies in the same category as nicotine and alcohol? Most sex researchers will tell you that its healthy to have a desire to watch others engage in sexual activity. It can be both entertaining and educational.

Saying that porn belongs with cigarettes and alcohol just reinforces the belief that sex is bad and that we should do everything we can to avoid seeing it.

[Obamarama]

156. I don't think porn is "bad"

But like alcohol and cigarettes, its consumption isn't intended for kids And all three - alcohol, cigarettes, and porn - can be addictive. Does that mean alcohol is bad/evil? No. Does it mean cigarettes are bad? Well, I have to admit I'm hard pressed to say anything redeeming about cigarettes. Does it mean porn is bad/evil? No.

Don't put words in my mouth.

[mongo]

160. Porn is not "addictive"

and to say so cheapens the lives of recovering addicts/alcolhoics.

I've never seen anyone spend there rent money on porn.

Do people get obsessive about porn? Sometimes, but it is not nearly as prevelent as the media would like you to belive.

I have regular customers - some come in every week. They take advantage of my 3 videos for 29.95 deal. But how many people go and rent 3 hollywood movies every week, or watch that many (or more) on pay-per-view or premium cable?

DU, now that's addictive :sarcasm:

[Mister Mark]

163. addiction

Kzoo, it's incorrect to say that porn can be addictive. It's not a substance. You can be compulsive about watching porn, the same way that some people are compulsive about gambling, shopping, or listening to show tunes (haha), but to say that porn is addictive is to buy into the anti-sex attitude that pervades society.

[Obamarama]

185. Whatever...

This has devolved into something so far from what my original thoughts were when I posted, I DON'T EVEN CARE ANY MORE.

Your rhetoric is tiresome.

Over and out.

[smb]

93. Here's How

I don't see how this can be extrapolated into an outright ban on gay porn - that is a 'legalization' issue rather than a 'regulation' issue.

Again, the obvious analogy is to the various Jim Crow scams used to circumvent the Fifteenth Amendment. Requring people to prove literacy if they want to vote seems harmless enough, and perhaps even beneficial to the health of the body politic -- who wants the fate of the Republic to be decided by ignoramuses?

However, the policy became a de facto tool of bigotry, because the power of administering it was in the hands of bigots.

The same problem would recur with this policy.

[matcom]

90. i have this take - JOBS OUTSOURCED!

all the hosting companies will now move their servers overseas, thereby costing American jobs to circumvent this.

can't regulate overseas servers and hosts

[Megahurtz]

172. Awwww Shit! There goes MY job.......

again!!!:silly:

I just may have to move out of the country now.....oh....bummer!!!:+

[smb]

92. Puh-Leeze

This government regulation is to "the cost of combatting the marketing of porn to children" as poll taxes were to "the cost of running elections".

For those who came in late, the latter is a classic example of a policy with Benign Stated Purpose A (paying the bills) and Actual Malignant Purpose B (keeping blacks from voting).

[HuckleB]

94. Yeah, that's a viable comparison.

:eyes:

[uncle ray]

100. as far as actually keeping kids from porn,

the "why" is correct, the problem is how. nobody here has a problem with making porn harder for children to access, but age-verification the way it currently exists does not work! the sites promise access to sites and you card will not be billed, we all know that is bullshit, except the 12 year old who thinks he can grab hid dads credit card use it to get access and never be charged. all the age verification does is tie the actual internet user to an adult name on a credit card account!

it would have been more effective, and cheaper(thus not needing their bogus 25% tax) if the tethugs would let the .xxx domain do what it is supposed to do, enable all adult websites to have a domain that can be easily blocked.:eyes:

[mongo]

136. Perhaps if *legalized* porn was truly legal

But the fact is you can still be arrested for obscenity for selling ANY explicit movie in 40 states, and on the federal level.

This is just one more way to attack the industry.

Take away the fact that I can be arrested any day of the week for selling any movie in my inventory, then I'll think about a "sin tax".

[Alcibiades]

141. This isn't about children

It's about politics. It's about the culture wars. The people behind this don't care about children, they care about power.

I don't mean to patronize you, but this proposal will not keep porn out of children's hands.

I don't know why your inbox is full of porn. If you don't want your inbox full of porn, exercise better control over your e-mail address. I get zero "hot chicks" and "dirty sluts" e-mails in my mailbox. Perhaps the problem is with your ISP?

Any "marketing" of porn to children is accidental. They don't have the credit cards to pay for it, so there's no incentive to market to children, but a big disincentive against it: existing law.

As far as child pornography is concerned, I don't know why you bring that up, as it's not the issue here, but that's already, like, way illegal, dude. I know that you may think that it's not the taxpayer's responsibility to subsidize enforcement of the law, but in this case, the FBI is really on top of it. Your tax dollars are already at work keeping child pornographers and pedophiles off the streets. I don't think the age verification thing is aimed at them, or the excise tax, as they don't follow existing law. I am happy to pay to keep these degenerate perverts off the streets out of general revenue, without creating some perverse linkage between the funding of the enforcement of child pornography laws and the porn industry.

I'm sorry, but it isn't that hard to keep porn out of the hands of kids. Maybe you have so much porn on your hands that you have a hard time keeping it out of the hands of children, maybe it's overflowing your hard drive, out the door and onto the lawn, but that's an exception.

I am all for protecting children, but this would not protect children. According to Children's Defense, about 8 kids a day are killed by guns in the U.S. 8 kids a day. Killed. That's a little more serious than junior seeing some booby, no? Where is the "excise tax" to protect children from gun violence?

If you don't think this doesn't score big with the fundies, you're wrong. "Protecting children" is popular with everyone, especially parents. If you think this one is good, how about "Let's keep the gays out of the public schools, protect the children from gayness?" Lots of people, tired of explaining how it is that their kid's gym teacher is a lady who doesn't walk like a girl, run like a girl or throw like a girl, think this is a good idea. The same people who think all gays are pedophiles go nuts on protecting kids from porn.

[AzDar]

73. Dear Blanche....Stay the hell out of my bedroom, hard drive,and uterus!

Thank you,
AzDar

[Mizmoon]

75. Sin tax on porn - I think it's GREAT

I hope they use the funds to help the people who have been victimized by this heinous, abusive industry.

[uncle ray]

98. why not a tax on HAVING sex?

we don't need morality police.

like i said above, what if you replaced "porn sites" with "politics sites" or "liberal america hating politics sites" would you feel the same way?

[Mizmoon]

99. Can't legally charge for sex so can't tax it

and comparing political sites to porn sits is comparing apples to oranges.

[uncle ray]

103. apples, oranges whatever, unpopular free speech is what it is.

at least unpopular with the moral types. they can take their "sin" taxes and shove them up their asses.

you're completey missing the point, it isn't about protecting the childred! it's about taxing and controlling adults, wake the fuck up!

[mongo]

161. In California it is not illegal to make adult entertainment

It is not considered prostitution. In the other 49 it is.

[Mister Mark]

106. Abusive in your opinion

The majority of people in the industry do NOT believe that its abusive. If you don't like porn, don't watch it.

[youspeakmylanguage]

174. Who exactly is "victimized"?

What is "heinous"? Who is "abusive"?

Women and men in the porn industry make thousands of dollars for engaging voluntarily in sexual acts in front of a camera.

If anyone is being victimized, it's the porn producers and retailers who are threatened and attacked for doing what they do.

Your self-righteous outrage is misplaced.

[Mizmoon]

179. Here is a letter to the editor submitted to Salon

earlier this year. This is a person I call a victim of pornography:
-------------------------------------
March 16, 2005

I almost couldn't read your article on pornography, because it hit so close to home that I almost cried.

I used to work in the porn industry, and please, please don't pretend it is a business like any other. It isn't. I want to make it clear: I was never raped, or beaten, or anything like that. I was just desperate for attention. I was so eager to hear someone tell me I was beautiful, I was hot, I was sexy, that I'd do just about anything. I signed away my rights for a compliment. As a teenager, I'd have sex with groups of boys because I wanted reassurance that I was sexually attractive. As an adult, I sold pictures of myself.

I did so in two capacities ... as a webmaster, and as a model on Web sites. I guess I can see how being a webmaster is empowering and all about freedom of speech. Being a model, however, is about being exploited; it's about selling your image for a pittance, and then having men make their money off you for the rest of your life. I sometimes wish, if I'd had to act out in such a self-destructive way, that I'd been a hooker, because at least I wouldn't be one anymore, but now, I'm going to be a porn chick for the rest of my life, and there is nothing, nothing I can do about it.

It makes me sick that there are men who make their living off me ... I provide a large chunk of their income, I've been told. They are pretending to be me, attributing personalities to me, and yes, it's my fault. I know it is my fault. I know I'm the one who got myself into this mess, and I know I was an idiot. I'm sure if you publish this letter you'll get a bunch of letters saying "Too bad, you're a sucker, you should have thought about it all before," and it's true, I should have.

That is why I am writing. I want to tell your readers that this is not an industry like the others, that once you get in you can't go back. Every time a guy says to me, "You look familiar," I tense up. Every time I start to get involved with someone, I dump them, because how can I bring this up to them? So ... yeah. I messed up. I hope other people can avoid falling into this. This is not a normal industry, it is messed up, and people will pretend to be your friends but they are not; they are all just using you. Yes, they use you in other industries, but in other industries the consequences are less severe. You don't experience the same level of fear once you're out of them.

Sometimes I think about killing myself, but mostly I try and pretend it never happened, or write it off as a colorful chapter of my youth. I'm getting a master's degree now, I'm living a calmer life, I'm drawing a better line between excitingly eccentric and totally insane.

Please, Salon, don't portray this as a healthy thing to do. It isn't. I didn't meet a single girl in the industry who wasn't desperate and needy, even though they were all good at bluffing. When you're in it, you start justifying everything to yourself, you get so caught up in the excitement, you say, "I'm doing this because I am confident!" but really, you aren't. Please don't encourage people to make such justifications to themselves. I know it's trendy to call this sort of thing "sex positive," but really, it is as sex negative as you can get.


-- Name withheld

http://archive.salon.com/books/letters/2005/03/16/porn2/

[youspeakmylanguage]

180. Regretting your own bad decisions doesn't qualify as abuse...

So she worked voluntarily and made a lot of money in the adult industry working as both a model AND as a producer, decided she didn't like what she was doing, got out, and then gets pissy and blames an entire industry for her own bad decisions despite admitting she was never physically or sexually abused?

:nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity:

There is no way she could have other people making money off of her image unless she either sold those images to a third party or signed an agreement by which she gave the owner of the images the right to use them in any way he or she chose.

:nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity:

You should save your bleeding heart for people who really are abused and hurt, like children and adults who are forced against their will into sex industries overseas.

[Mizmoon]

181. Compassion for others is forgotten

when it comes to ones own selfish pleasures, ey?

It's an industry set up to trap girls like her. If it was a Big Oil scam you'd (probably) be very angry. But since YOU profit (i.e. get to get off on looking at pics of girls like her) it's her "own bad decision".

:eyes:

edit for spelling

[youspeakmylanguage]

182. You know absolutely nothing about me...

I believe in freedom of speech and the 1st amendment. I believe in the right of all people to view, read, and watch whatever they wish. Friends of mine are in the retail end of the porn business, so I defend them. This has nothing to do with what either of us personally read, watch, or do.

It's always convenient for prudes to cast the people on the other side as perverts and enablers, but it's a pointless strawman that adds nothing to the debate. It's simply malicious.

We're defending freedom of speech, and you're attempting to use the so-called "victimization" of others to justify curtailing it. I personally believe that is dangerous and pathetic, especially when there are so many other REAL victims of sexual abuse that deserve out attention, time and resources.

Your fallacious comparison doesn't really warrant a response, but here it goes - NO ONE IN THE PROFESSIONAL, LEGITIMATE AMERICAN PORN BUSINESS IS FORCING ANYONE TO PARTICIPATE IN THEIR INDUSTRY! How that has anything to do with multinational corporations destroying the environment, I don't know. If it helps you sleep at night after advocating censorship and fascism, then by all means believe it.

[Mister Mark]

186. Bravo!

YOU SPEAK MY LANGUAGE! :applause:

[Mister Mark]

184. This is one individual

You can find unhappy people in every occupation. The "victim mentality" can be very easy to acquire, especially in an industry that is ridiculed and misunderstood by so many.

[dhinojosa]

76. WOW Great Idea!!!

I love my porn and this is a good idea. Politically it is done by the dems so this will give them a checkmark in the family values category (politics is shitty I know). This can put a stranglehold on Bush supporting companies like Adelphia too, who have turned to porn to replenish their profits.

The idea of a tax is fine, but 25% is pretty high, but porn isn't a necessity so we got to make up for the Bush tax cuts somehow.

Currently I can get to hard core porn within three clicks of my mouse. Some parents don't care, but some parents do care. Although, I always believe that parents that do care, ought to be involved in their child's internet. Currently, it is just too damn easy.

Plus, we need to set an example that we can have porn and responsibility at the same time. Wouldn't that be great if the NRA felt the same.

[mongo]

101. So If you had to give your drivers liscense information

to access a porn site, would you be OK with that? Would that not have a chilling effect on other people, who wish to surf in private?

I'm not totally against the idea of age verification. But given to comments on this thread about where it could lead to, it scares me.

As far as the tax goes, it is blatantly unconstitutional. Our legislators should know that. It is a tax based on the content of speech. How about a 25% tax on all DU donations?

Everyone thinks that everyone in the adult industry is stinking rich. There certainly are some rich folks in the industry, but there are also thousands if not millions of small web sites and internet masturbators (women who perform on video camera) who will be hurt by this legislation.

[dhinojosa]

104. I paid taxes for the Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince....

where is the ACLU for that one?

Furthermore, small web sites and internet masturbators are not going to be hurt by this. In fact that just falls under the plain BULLSHIT category! Porn is a commodity that people will always want, just like alcohol, people will always pay for it. I pay twice as much for my porn currently than I would pay for a regular recent movie. I paid $40 for Total Babe 4, and I paid $15 for Meet the Fockers. Do I jump and down and complain? NO, why? Because I don't need it, I want it, and I will pay whatever price to get my kicks on. It's a sellers market, and if there is a federal tax on it, fine, I will buy anyway.

[mongo]

112. Man, you should shop at my store

3 videos for $29.95 - of course, that is for catalog drops so you won't get a movie that isn't at least 2 years old.

Techinically, in many states you are supposed to be keeping track of any online sales you make and pay the sales tax (use tax) directly to the state. Ohio is very big on this. Most business pay their use tax, but few individuals do.

The problem with this tax is that it is a tax based on the content of speech. How about a 25% tax on political speech? Would you go for that?

[dhinojosa]

114. Oh yeah, we have those deals here too.

I just don't like ugly girls though.

In answer to your speech question, my answer is no to political speech. But I wouldn't consider "Fuck it harder" as speech though, but in legal arguments I guess you can, and I do see how this can be a Pandora's box.

[mongo]

139. We get all the same movies from the big companies

Vivid, Wicked, Sin City, Adam & Eve.

Unless of course you consider Jenna Jameson, Tera Patrick, and all the rest of the bigger stars ugly.


I just don't like ugly girls though.
That was a pretty mean comment in and of itself. Don't feed a certain contingent of DU - they don't need it and neither do I.

[dhinojosa]

142. Tera Patrick is gorgeous!

As far as my ugly girls comment....I wasn't talking about girls in general. Just the girls that are in the films, I am not watching for personality shall I say. It feeds a mental need.

[PunkPop]

78. Oh for christsakes

We've got a sham war bleeding us of billions a month, our jobs leaving this country for greener corporate pastures overseas, a healthcare system more expensive and less efficient than most any other in the western world, overcrowded public schools that are finding it harder and harder to provide a quality education and last but not least, a government thoroughly corrupted by the influence of money and more beholden to corporations than the people they're supposed to represent.

And these bozos are going after nudie pictures. I'd scream but like everybody else with half a brain I'm suffering severe outrage fatigue.

[Spider Jerusalem]

81. More moralising idiocy on the part of Democrats.

Republicans I'd expect this from. What next, a new version of the Meese Commission?

[smoogatz]

82. It's a misguided attempt to hijack the "moral values" vote

But the 80% of "moral values" voters who voted (allegedly) for Bush in '04 don't care about protecting our children from porn, or the fact that somebody hid R-rated sex in their ultra-violent video game. They voted for Bush because he's anti-gay, anti-choice and anti-Muslim, and knows how to talk the talk of the evangelical Xtian right.

That said, sin taxes are an American tradition, and the adult film industry rakes in over $80 billion a year, dwarfing Hollywood, the music industry and the video game industry combined. We tax the crap out of cigarettes and alcohol--why not porn?

That said, Mongo's right--taxing speech you don't like is wildly unconstitutional. We should legalize marijuana and tax it, instead.

[MadHound]

83. This is stupid and abhorent on a number of levels

First, it is going to be the first step in censorship of the net, not a good precedence. Second, this is going to be the first step in taxing internet sales. Third, if they take down the porn industry on the net, they will be cutting their own throats. A little known fact is that the porn industry in a major technological force in this country. After revolutionizing the home theatre market by bringing porn into the home via video tapes, porn then blazed a technological trail on the net. Web casts, compression solutions, streaming video and audio, all of these and more came into being as solutions to putting porn on the net. You take the driving force away, and our technology will suffer. You want that Star Trek Holodeck? Well then, don't kill the porn industry, for they are going to be the ones bringing it to us.

Sorry, but this is a bad idea all around. It won't solve the problem, it will just give lazy parents a sense of false security. If you don't want your kid accessing porn, there are two answers. First, put the computer in a high traffic, high visibility area of the house, not in Jr's bedroom. Second, install passwords and filters. It is that simple.

[Pewlett Hackard]

87. its crazy but it might work

How does the govt know which sites are porn? There would have to be govt workers who do nothin but surf for porn all day to verify which sites are taxable. There's a career opportunity I might be interested in :D

Where does the tax bill get sent to -- the porn site operator or the visitor? I would guess the site operator, but its not easy to find the mailing address.

[matcom]

88. fucking idiots

all the good online porn comes from overseas anyway. you might regulate US porn but you can't TOUCH overseas servers

ignorant fucks

[dhinojosa]

105. Yeah, but the Germans go too far....

you know that.

[Mister Mark]

108. huh?

"the Germans go too far..."

What's your definition of "too far"?

[dhinojosa]

109. Oh you know....

chains, whips, scat, incest, fucking dead people, gag balls.

[Mister Mark]

130. gag balls?

lol... I can't take you seriously.

[dhinojosa]

140. I am dead serious about gag balls....

Nothing sobers me up like a discussion about gag balls. :hi:

[mongo]

144. That would be a ball gag

As opposed to an o-ring gag, harness bit, etc.

How many did you need?

[dhinojosa]

146. hehe

I guess I am not as serious about it. I stand corrected, a ball gag huh? Ever since that drunken party mishap I have called it a gag ball.

[mongo]

149. No problem

I once had a group of drunk rednecks in the store (a frequent occurrence), and one of them was looking at the Ben Wa balls. He didn't know what they were, so he asked his friend

"Them theres bullion balls" - good thing there's a curtain between the register and the back room, 'cause I was silently losing it.

I didn't bother correcting him. I could barely contain myself.

[dhinojosa]

158. BWHAHAHA!

Were they gold or silver at least?

[phillinweird247]

107. No taxation on my pornification

Its time for a boston T&A Party
woo hoo

[dhinojosa]

111. We can dress like Pat Robertson's and throw porn into the bay!!

Wooo. hehe

[Megahurtz]

118. This is just another ploy for

some sort of differing agenda that they have in mind.
Kids watching porn my ass!
I would bet that the underlying issue is for something else.......

Usually when they pass something like this, it's for another reason.

I'm sure that the Repukes would like to tax everyone that uses the internet for whatever.

That's just one example, but you can at least trust them that it's for some other sneaky, slimy, devious reason.

As far as the Democrats go, I am starting to think that there is just no Democratic Party anymore!:shrug:

[bspence]

120. Another Democrat, messing with Free Speech

I HATE HATE HATE the way Democrats are going against free speech these days.

First Hillary and GTA: San Andreas, and now this.

We will lose the youth vote, mark my words.

[bspence]

124. Or at least a free internet

Let's target all those SINful things that our bible says are bad.

GRRRR...

We're a laughing stock among male voters.

[slay]

122. Note the DLC stench all over this legislation

I'm an adult and I am sick of all this "for the children" crap. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but in my day parents actually took responsibility for raising their kids. All this "government as parent" legislation has got to go. They use this "for the children" stuff to impose censorship. If people need yet another parent in their lives, they can always have Jesus. :eyes:

[Xithras]

127. HAH! All 30 gigs of the porn on my server is FREE! Tax THAT you trolls!

Anyone with access to the FasTTrak network (Kazaa) or any of the Gnutella networks can get at my 30+ gigs of shared porn images and videos at no charge. It was set up as a joke a while back, but my bandwidth is ample and my servers capable, so I've never taken it down (sorry, I'm not posting the share name here because it'd be a violation of DU's rules against advertising).

So what's a 25% excise tax on free?

The reality here, of course, is that this tax does absolutely nothing to stop any of the problems these people are claiming to address. They claim that porn is only a "couple of clicks away", which is true, but then want to implement a law that will impose taxes on PURCHASED porn. The problem with that logic is that purchased porn is ALREADY blocked from easy public viewing by the sites payment and login systems. The ONLY porn content on the Internet that's easily accessible is the free stuff (and there's LOTS of that), and by its very definition free stuff isn't taxable.

[Chovexani]

167. Gotta love the logic, eh?

Who the hell pays for porn online?

Shit, if they really wanted to do something about kids looking at porn, they'd tax Livejournal, because that's where I get 99% of mine (ah, yaoi scans daily, how I love you!).

[napi21]

131. I don't really care if they tax porn. I just don't see how they're gonna

do it. I guess they could tax the site for useage.

Hey, with this one, I gotta say, if you want to play ya gotta pay.

[Rex]

137. Translation: what can the gummit leech off of the people now?

Let's tax the internet! Yes, that will make people happy! Tax porn!

[tjdee]

138. Privacy issues, and free can't really be taxed.

For those people who were all up in arms about the PATRIOT Act and privacy--this is the same sort of thing.
Those who wish to remain anonymous (well, as anonymous as you think you're going to be with an IP) aren't going to like having to verify their age (probably by their credit card/other info with their name on it).

Also, there is a LOT of free stuff out there, as someone above was saying, file-sharing and P2P allows plenty of people to see plenty of things for free. Look for file-sharing to increase.

They're coming for the internet. It's just a matter of time before everything on the internets is taxed beyond reason.

[depakid]

145. Put gun to party's head- pull trigger. Repeat process

I'm sorry- but here's yet another example of why the Dems have become irrelevant- and why they will continue to lose.

With all of the pressing issues facing this country, the Republican wing of the Democratic party has to go on a ridiculous (and unworkable) anti-porn crusade. Nice job.

[bluestateguy]

147. I'm for small government and low taxes for 98% of the American people

Hence I oppose this legislation.

[Cori Cycle]

154. I wish I had own a age ver. business...

Then I would be SO RICH! off this registration. damn damn... How can I start one?

[info being]

159. We'll have to rely more on P2P I guess

[niceypoo]

162. Funding America with "Cock"

Only republicans would think of such a thing........

[HughBeaumont]

165. Stay the HELL out of my bedroom, Blanche -

This tells me I'd better scour and start collecting now before the morality nazis slap this piece of shit in. And everyone on this board supporting this stupid bill because they think porn is morally wrong and they feel it should be outlawed? GUESS WHAT - I DON'T. And it's not your damned right whatsoever to proselytize your Dark Ages morals on me or anyone else viewing it in the privacy of their own home.

Don't you have to give a credit card# with AV? That's definitely something I'M not doing - giving a credit card number to anything even associated with online porn, and neither should anyone else. I don't need THAT can of worms opened. Plenty of free stuff without the AV scams.

[Chovexani]

166. Okay, let me see if I have this straight

Congress wants to tax net porn, but not rich people.

What? </lil jon>

Earth logic, please!

-C.

[redqueen]

171. GRRR I'M ABOUT TO JOIN THE FLIPPIN GREEN PARTY!

:nuke:

Taxing PORN, and not THE RICH?

Not CORPORATIONS... like those that OFFSHORE THEIR FUCKING CORPORATE OFFICES?!

:banghead:

I'm about done with you, you useless sacks of shit!

[charlie]

176. Senate "New" Democrats

The lot of them. Guess we're seeing their playbook for the coming campaign season: Hectoring Moralizers = Electoral Success!

Meanwhile, the country burns down around our ears...

[HughBeaumont]

178. Well, that would be biting the hand that feeds them.

Can't have THAT now, can we? The ball-gagged politicians go tits up for their corporate betters in hope for some contribution treats.

[Megahurtz]

183. Totally!

Me too.:nuke:

[Ambrose]

175. In some ways this is needed.

I'm against censorship in any form but I also don't want my kids exposed to some of the dirtiest imaginable porn either. It is easy to say "watch your kids" but the internet is available in to many places today. Kid have a laptop? Boom, over to the nearest wireless location. I've done some "research" and you can find just about anything your perverted mind can come up with through a google search. You can watch movie clips without ever identifying yourself through hundreds of teaser sites.

Do I think this law will work? No. But the most elemental point is something I have been saying for sometime...your identity should not be hidden when accessing the internet. We should all have some id that identifies us as we surf. Not for a big brother monitoring but to make people responsible for their own actions. Want to stop spammers? Make them identifiable. Stop phishing? Make them identifiable. I don't claim to have any idea how you could do this in a pratical sense that wouldn't violate anyones freedom but if it could be developed then it would harness in a lot of the bad stuff on the internet.

BTW, if this law passed it would just (at best) push the porn back to the newsgroups where it existed several years ago. It won't stop it.

Also, if you don't think you can get to explicit sites just google with safe search off for some sexual reference with "gallery" or "movies" in the search and see what comes up.

[gulfcoastliberal]

177. Dems = Sellouts

Shit like this is why I switched my registration to I. Now the 1st amendment is worth sacrificing in their vain attempt to capture republican fundie votes. Welcome to the theocracy.