Tucker on the side of freedom vs anti-porn Dems !?

[mixedview]

I can't believe what I'm watching! Bowtie Boy is interviewing a Dem - Debbie Stabenow - who wants to tax Internet porn. Tucker says what about all the free stuff (how do you know Tucker ? he he). She's saying that EVERY porno site would have to have some mechanism - ie credit card - before you can get into the site even to view FREE stuff.

Tucker saying how do you determine what's art and what's porn ? Are you going to set up a commission ? Stabenow saying most porn sites already registered as adult sites. Tucker saying isn't amazing how the government PROFITS off of all of our addictions. Commercial. Now Tucker giving in, saying he thinks it should be regulated, children, healthy sexual relations, blah, blah, blah.

Segment over.


I'm an independent and libertarian and a centrist - I don't know if I'm comfortable with this. I'm all for protecting kids, but I just hope I as an adult don't now have to give my credit card (and risk identity theft) just to view some free porn. And a 25% tax on monthly subscriptions sounds harsh.

Do rank and file Dems support Lincoln and Stabenow on this issue ?

[jim3775]

1. It's unfeasible. Pass that law and every U.S. hosted porn site...

will move to a server in Thailand or something.

[onebox30]

3. I totally agree.

Tucker made some good points but the most important one is that this law would just drive businesses out of the US, thus decreasing tax revenue. This type of proposed legislation is nothing more than pandering to parents who want the government to do their job for them.

[Kerrytravelers]

2. I think, and I'm no expert, you have to register your credit card to prove

your age. Please,speak up if I'm wrong.

[mixedview]

6. No. Currently a credit card is only needed for subscriptions,

not for free samples.

:kick:

[Ian David]

4. Related thread:GOP Donors drip with hot, sticky porn money

GOP Donors drip with hot, sticky porn money
Topic started by IanDB1 on Dec-22-04 11:11 PM (6 replies)
Last modified by Moderator on Dec-23-04 12:30 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1093853

[wli]

5. yep, it's an anti-Rethug thing

[mongo]

8. Related thread, cable/satalite companies give cash to GOP

would have been a more accurate description of your link.

[WCGreen]

7. If a democrat said Farts were bad for the environment....

He would say you are crazy, farts are an intregal part of the ecosystem....

[Warren DeMontague]

9. Tucker has made some very socially libertarian statements in the past

I believe at one point he said he didn't think it was the government's business if consenting adults want to smoke pot.

Fuck, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Puregonzo1188]

10. Dems now choosing Family Values Over Civil Liberties?

I am really surprised there hasn’t more complaint about this on DU. This is pretty bad, remember when the Republicans put “family values” before free speech? I really cannot believe the Democrats are doing this and I can’t believe there hasn’t more criticism about this on this board. This a typical Repug Christian Fascist tactic and it’s the Dems who are pushing it?

For Tucker Carlson, as I much as I hate to admit he does make some good points some times. He’s for the legalization of marijuana, he’s against the death penalty, and as far as this new bill goes he’s raised all the same concerns about I have. Particularly, the “who is going to define what is porn and what is art.”

[Strawman]

11. How about taxing wealth to raise revenue

What ever happened to that idea? Taxing internet porn, fast food, expanding the lotto etc. Just a bunch of regressive bullshit to nickel and dime the little guy not to mention a violation of privacy. Parents can buy filters to block that kind of content. I'm reminded of the words of George Carlin in response to those who would give up too many of our civil liberties in order to supposedly protect "the children."

[jsamuel]

12. Yeah, this is a bad bill

I thought it would only apply to sites that charged money, but if they are going to apply taxes on sites that are free, then that is an obvious denial of free speech.

[Puregonzo1188]

13. I’d like to also point out

that although tax cigarettes, alcohol, etc. we don’t really tax images or certain type of images. This would be like saying, lets tax horror movies or all pictures where people wear red sweaters. It’s absurd and very bad for the Bill Of Rights to just tax a specific type of image. I mean if we can tax certain types of images, what next? This sort of opens up the floodgates, why not tax movies, books, magazines, etc. that feature views opposing the Status Quo. It may seem like a long shot from taxing internet porn, but if we make it acceptable to place taxes on certain types of pictures/films/images than how far will it go?

What’s really frightening to me is I’ve come to expect this sort of rollback of civil liberties to come from Republicans, but Democrats too? If they start down this road, we will be in deep trouble.