Tax for Adult Websites
09/30/2009In late July, several House Democrats introduced a bill that would impose a 25% tax on the revenue of most adult-themed Web sites.
Many adult-oriented Web sites in todays online world are not only failing to keep products unsuitable for children from view, but are also pushing those products in childrens faces. Its time that we stand up and say enough is enough. Lincoln's bill, called the Internet Safety and Child Protection Act of 2005, would apply only to adult sites subject to controversial record-keeping requirements regarding the identities of people participating in sex acts displayed on Web sites. Those sites must cough up the taxes and use age verification techniques "prior to the display of any pornographic material, including free content." Other Senate sponsors of the legislation--all Democrats--include Thomas Carper of Delaware, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ken Salazar of Colorado, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Kent Conrad
However, critics point to two arguments against this bill. One is that, historically, courts have sided against laws invoking censorship on the web. The Supreme Court has largely rebuffed Congress' previous attempts at Internet censorship. It rejected the Communications Decency Act's prohibition on "indecent" material, and upheld an injunction against the Child Online Protection Act, which targeted "harmful to minors" material online.
Also, courts are not likely to uphold a law that selectively taxes some forms of expression, but not others. "The general principle is that if you can't ban a certain category of expression, then you cannot selectively impose a tax on it," said Jamin Ruskin, a professor of constitutional law at American University. "So if the speech that the senator is targeting is protected by the First Amendment, it may not be selectively taxed."
"The bottom line is, if it were constitutional to tax a disfavored category of speaker, then there would be 99 percent taxes on pornography and hate speakers and Howard Stern and so on," Raskin said. "But the courts understand that the power to tax ultimately is the power to destroy."
