13 state GOP govts put forward bill to tax porn

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

What happened to big gubmint?

This of course, though I don't see why online porn subscriptions shouldn't be subject to sales tax. They might be already. I dunno. People who pay for porn online probably are creeps anyway.

Paying = creep
Watching = ?

I don't watch it anymore than the next (non Atlas) guy but any porn behind a paywall has got to be considerably weirder than a video about two people doing it on a bear skin rug or something.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There's nothing shameful about normal human male sexuality.

Who defines what's "normal"?

[Santander]

There's nothing shameful about normal human male sexuality.

Who defines what's "normal"?

Basically the opposite of whatever you consider desirable.

(I don't mean this as a personal slight)

[Anna Komnene]

There's nothing shameful about normal human male sexuality.

FTFY.  That reminds me of when I was taking a "contemporary moral issues" course in freshman year of college.  The topic was porn and I decided to point out that men aren't the only people that watch porn.  Of course, the other girls in the class sassed me and left me out to dry.  We all live in the dorm together, I know that they do it too.  Hypocrites. 

Anyway, I'm all for combating human trafficking but slapping a porn-dar on ISPs isn't the way to do it.  Most porn doesn't have anything to do with that.  There are some places that take the safety and protection of their workers very seriously.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There's nothing shameful about normal human male sexuality.

Who defines what's "normal"?

Basically the opposite of whatever you consider desirable.

(I don't mean this as a personal slight)

I have no idea what you mean if not that.

[Virginiá]

This of course, though I don't see why online porn subscriptions shouldn't be subject to sales tax. They might be already. I dunno. People who pay for porn online probably are creeps anyway.

I was mainly referring to this part:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which blatantly goes against what Republicans say they stand for. I'm not against taxing porn purchases (subscriptions/etc), which in fact I thought was already done, no?

-

It's pretty amazing how this one policy idea they are pushing undercuts so much of what they claim to support:

1. Taxing it solely as a reason to reduce said activity is just a loophole that again goes against what Republicans say they are for. Flat out creating a regulation to reduce porn consumption and creating a tax to reduce porn consumption are more or less the same in this regard.

2. I'd like to say it goes against their anti-tax hero status but Republicans seem to love sin taxes.

3. Freedom! - They are always yelling about the 1st amendment (mainly in regards to religion and campaign finance), so how is this even on the table?

[Santander]

1. Taxing it solely as a reason to reduce said activity is just a loophole that again goes against what Republicans say they are for. Flat out creating a regulation to reduce porn consumption and creating a tax to reduce porn consumption are more or less the same in this regard.

They're taxing it so they can boost their patriot cred.

[Silent Hunter]

Makes sense. If you try to ban abortion, you should morally have to ban masturbation, too.

That doesn't make sense...

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

There's nothing a lot that is shameful about normal human male sexuality.

But the government shouldn't do stuff about it.

[ApatheticAustrian]

A full ban would make more sense, but this is better than nothing.

may i - as a new poster - humbly ask, what's your reasoning regarding this matter?

[Antonio the Sixth]

A full ban would make more sense, but this is better than nothing.

may i - as a new poster - humbly ask, what's your reasoning regarding this matter?

Sure. I think porn has a harmful influence on social norms and values, contributing to the dehumanization, commodification, and vulgarization of sex, as well as promoting a slew of horrible gender stereotypes. And that's not even getting into the exploitation of the actors' bodies, which is barely any different than prostitution.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Sure. I think porn has a harmful influence on social norms and values, contributing to the dehumanization, commodification, and vulgarization of sex, as well as promoting a slew of horrible gender stereotypes. And that's not even getting into the exploitation of the actors' bodies, which is barely any different than prostitution.

thank you.

well, then i guess, you also not a "fan" of legal prostitution.

i understand were you are coming from - i myself am especially shocked hearing about working conditions and health questions of the actors - i just generally think....

1) adults should be generally able and allowed to make their own decisions re: how to use their own body. (i realize this is sometimes the muslim-women-stereotype thingie and includes women who surely never ever wanted to do this - which is why i am generally for legalization and the marihuana approach.....fair, open and regulated, outlaw the rest.)

2) this is after allt he oldest of all trades and outlawing it in general would work as bad - or even worse - than with abortions or booze. in fact, societies without open sexuality usually are even more cruel regaring sexual behaviour in the dark, as some asian and african states prove, imho. it's a part of human nature and punishment alone isn't helping in that matter, imho.

3) it would be even worse if somehow we would need to create government bureaus to watch/regulate and judge pornography or fetish material to decide where the limits are...this is a really messy topic, which isn't totally clear-cut or  "one-size-for-all"-ish and the goal would be, IMHO, either worthless (just scratching the surface) or so extreme, that we would enter a kind of new Restauration era, filled with pruderie and hiding.

anyway, those are just my 2 cents....

[Person Man]

There's nothing shameful about normal human male sexuality.

FTFY.  That reminds me of when I was taking a "contemporary moral issues" course in freshman year of college.  The topic was porn and I decided to point out that men aren't the only people that watch porn.  Of course, the other girls in the class sassed me and left me out to dry.  We all live in the dorm together, I know that they do it too.  Hypocrites. 

Anyway, I'm all for combating human trafficking but slapping a porn-dar on ISPs isn't the way to do it.  Most porn doesn't have anything to do with that.  There are some places that take the safety and protection of their workers very seriously.

Oh. Don't get me started!

[publicunofficial]

Who the hell is still paying money for their porn?

[angus]

require all internet-enabled devices to come installed with an anti-porn filter, which adult consumers could choose to have removed for a fee of $20. They're calling it the Human Trafficking Prevention Act.

Haha.  I expected a either a link to The Onion or to a Rick Astley video.

Seems like a bad idea.  Waste of their time and the taxpayers' money because it creates yet another layer of bureaucracy.  It unnecessarily adds costs to consumer electronics as well.  Also, it involves censorship--one man's dada is another man's cubism and all that.  I know that there are well-established methods of art appreciation, but having to recognize forms for a grade in a class is not the same as having a government censor to officially decide what's what.  Not a good precedent.

Moreover, it's ideologically inconsistent.  If one really thinks that viewing of pornography is such a great public health crisis for society that there ought to be a law against it, then why have the twenty dollar-licensing option?  It's like saying, "Murder is illegal, but if you buy this five thousand-dollar chit, then you can go human hunting with impunity."  Either it's bad or it's not.  Make up your minds.

The good news is that it was started by a man who actually tried to marry his computer and who has been charged with harassing his daughter as well as a country singer.  Not a very inspiring endorsement.  I don't think it will get much traction.

[pbrower2a]

Heavy involvement in pornography is likely bad for people. Pornography proves, all in all, a surrogate for sex. It is far more likely to impose loneliness than to break the ice in a relationship. For participants, it is horrible. I am told that women who became Playboy centerfolds (and this is the mildest form of heterosexual porn involving women as sex objects) have high rates of either becoming fundamentalist Christians (now that is a decisive rejection of what they had been) or becoming messed up on drugs and alcohol. Women who thought that they might be advancing their acting careers have found that involvement in even the softest-core porn is not good for them. Then there is the harder stuff that is more blatant and destructive. There are lots of suicides in that activity.

I can understand why people use porn. If they are lonely and expect to remain so, as on an oil rig or a ship with a single-sex crew, then I understand. Porn is better than sexual harassment or prostitution -- safer for its user, at the least, and possibly an employer or spouse. But we have plenty of other questionable activities from strip clubs to gambling casinos to 'rough' bars.     

[mvd10]

I don't really support this, but I'll gladly take it if this replaces the gay bashing.

[DavidB.]

I don't really support this, but I'll gladly take it if this replaces the gay bashing.

Don't think it will.

Any Republican who supports this should never talk about muh big gulp again.

[Person Man]

Heavy involvement in pornography is likely bad for people. Pornography proves, all in all, a surrogate for sex. It is far more likely to impose loneliness than to break the ice in a relationship. For participants, it is horrible. I am told that women who became Playboy centerfolds (and this is the mildest form of heterosexual porn involving women as sex objects) have high rates of either becoming fundamentalist Christians (now that is a decisive rejection of what they had been) or becoming messed up on drugs and alcohol. Women who thought that they might be advancing their acting careers have found that involvement in even the softest-core porn is not good for them. Then there is the harder stuff that is more blatant and destructive. There are lots of suicides in that activity.

I can understand why people use porn. If they are lonely and expect to remain so, as on an oil rig or a ship with a single-sex crew, then I understand. Porn is better than sexual harassment or prostitution -- safer for its user, at the least, and possibly an employer or spouse. But we have plenty of other questionable activities from strip clubs to gambling casinos to 'rough' bars.     

Like Pamela Anderson and Jenna Jameson joining the altRight?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Ok...what does porn have to do with Human Track flicking? And who even pays for porn these days? And what are these 13 states anyway?

[Mopsus]

1. Internet porn filters already exist. Would these bills automatically install one onto the browser of anyone trying to access porn in a relevant states? Not that I'm opposed - I obviously support the intent, as any moral person would - I just wonder how that would work.

2. "porn = speech" is one of the worst findings in the history of the Supreme Court. Hopefully, Trump fills the judiciary with enough conservative Catholics to overturn that precedent.

[Bojack Horseman]

Does this constitute porn?

(apology for the nudity, but blame Michelangelo Buonarotti for this):



Does this?



The Supreme Court has already declared the SLAPS test valid in ruling out certain objects as legitimate exclusions from the category of actionable pornography:

Serious Literary, Artistic, Political, or Scientific content

The line is blurry. Child porn cannot pass the test, but that is about it.

Anyone who wants a porn filter is welcome to get it. 

Taxing legitimate expressions in a discriminatory matter would seem to violate the First Amendment.   

Not to mention the fact that pictures of nude children are not obscene, as ruled by the Supreme Court in 1953.

[Person Man]

Ok...what does porn have to do with Human Track flicking? And who even pays for porn these days? And what are these 13 states anyway?

Taking clients to a strip club is considered human trafficking by my current employer.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ok...what does porn have to do with Human Track flicking? And who even pays for porn these days? And what are these 13 states anyway?

Taking clients to a strip club is considered human trafficking by my current employer.

...yeah I don't think I need to explain how ridiculous that is. And I actually think internet porn is more of an issue than strip clubs.

Why? Because there's no human element to it, and it's so ubiquitous and easy to obtain. You can't go to a strip club with a few clicks, and even if you do, even if you are going just to look at people dancing naked, you'll still have a personal connection, maybe even some good conversations and become a friend. I know that I did, many times. Plus strip clubs hardly ever employ trafficking victims and there's not much need since the easy money ensures so many local women will do it. Regardless of the results of that economic situation, it's a fact. Going to a strip club is a beneficial activity with a human connection. Watching hordes of internet porn isn't.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

1. Internet porn filters already exist. Would these bills automatically install one onto the browser of anyone trying to access porn in a relevant states? Not that I'm opposed - I obviously support the intent, as any moral person would - I just wonder how that would work.

2. "porn = speech" is one of the worst findings in the history of the Supreme Court. Hopefully, Trump fills the judiciary with enough conservative Catholics to overturn that precedent.

The Court hasn't made that finding have they?  The precedent is the Miller test.  But it is just very difficult in practice to come up with porn bans that don't also infringe on what is constitutionally protected, since the line here is so fuzzy and subjective.