Wack Tax

Smut has been an integral part of the Internet from it's earliest days. Historians have recently discovered that residents of the Sumerian River Crescent used to exchange emails on cuneiform tablets - and often these were addresses to places in Mesopotamia where various 'adult' services could be rendered for a fee of a few goats.

So given the fact that these types of interests are so deeply ingrained it seems odd that now, all of a sudden, busybody legislators have proposed a tax on pornography - the Internet Safety and Child Protection Act of 2005. The rate would be a clobbering 25%. But the basis for levying this tax raises constitutional concerns. Scholar Eugene Volokh (of the Volokh Conspiracy blog) has this to say:

Content-based taxes, like other content-based restriction, can generally be upheld only if the government can show that the law is necessary to serve a compelling government interest.

Now it's the Democrats who want the tax; the compelling government interest is revenue - ostensibly to pay for the expenses to monitor the behavior of pornographers to ensure they don't market to children. Some conservatives are actually against the tax - but only because they don't want to "legitimize" pornography. If porn is put on the shelf with alcohol and tobacco it becomes an vice that can be legally indulged, but at a price. These strict cultural watchdogs don't want lose a chance to ban it outright.

Don't get me wrong - kids are too easily exposed to this. But I can't decide which is worse - the craven spendaholics who want to make tax money on your private business or the scolds who want to try the prohibition trick all over again. Once again discretion, restraint, and responsible parenting don't seem to be among the qualities our civic leaders are willing to endorse.

VIA WIRED