Why Does Porn Get a Pass?

Patric Henry Center for Individual Liberty ^ | 8/29/2002 | Gary Aldrich

[traditionalist]

Let’s talk about the facts of life. It’s a fact of life that we have lost the war to control pornography. The war was over years ago when the Supreme Court ruled that porn was legal if it met community standards. Whatever Conservatives or American society in general wished to do about this growing wave of filth has been for naught. It’s saddening to admit, but it’s true.

During the Reagan administration, I was part of a nationwide effort to try to make a dent in the pornography industry. The FBI had hard evidence that organized crime (OC) had moved into the pornography industry, just as they had into gambling, prostitution and drugs. OC thrives on the vices of humans.

After a year-long undercover case that more than proved the OC connection to porn, we brought forward our indictments. At that time, the community standard that allows federal prosecutions for obscene material gave us the hammer to put away many OC thugs – even the Liberal Miami juries agreed that some of the material being sold was a bit over the top. We fined these sleaze merchants heavily and sent them to the slammer.

You know what? We didn’t even make a dent.

Today, that same kind of material is routinely displayed on hundreds of Internet websites advertising their wares in an effort to get you to pay a fee to “peek” inside. What’s inside must really be filthy, but if it isn’t considered child porn, it won’t be prosecuted. Eight years of Bill Clinton in the White House and Janet Reno in the Department of Justice guaranteed that every community standard in the nation has been lowered. Today, both federal and local prosecutions of routine porn are a lost cause.

Whatever objections we had as a society to this porn garbage are moot at this point.

Hundreds of billions of dollars are made each year on the “sales” of horrible things, images that most of us want to keep away not only from our children, but from our communities. We want to keep this material from finding its way into the very fabric of our society. Yet, there is an enormous appetite for this stuff – so much so that it’s obvious that the flow from producer to consumer cannot be controlled. Conservatives need to understand this. We have lost this war, but is there something positive that can come from this? Do we just “give up,” or is there some way we can curtail the amount of porn being produced?

You bet there is, and here’s the answer: Tax the living daylights out of it! Tax every part of it. Tax the consumers who want to look at it. Tax the “actors” – mostly women, and some men – who are making money being “models” for these porn sites. Tax every network that allows this human sewage to flow through their switches, cables, phone lines – tax any entity that makes it easy for this material to go from camera lens to your living room where little Johnny can see it while you’re out at the grocery store.

Call it a Porn Tax.

Tax them federally, and tax them at the state level as well. Tax them county and tax them local. Tax them until it hurts, and tax them until they scream. Then, tax them right out of business.

Impossible you say? Wait a minute! Isn’t this the reasoning behind the tax on cigarettes? Cigarettes are considered to be a threat to the well being of humans. Is filthy pornography less of a threat to the minds and emotional well-being of humans?

We also tax alcohol heavily, reasoning that a heavy tax keeps the prices up, and thus, maybe out of the hands of too many drunks. As a society, we recognize that booze is not the best way to have a good time, but we acknowledge that it cannot be stopped, so we heavily regulate it, and we tax the grapes out of it!

Why does porn get a pass?

Regulating and taxing cigarettes is not a signal that society approves of the production, distribution and use of tobacco products – just the opposite is true. Our society has begun to frown on the use of cigarettes and has outlawed their use in many public places, including restaurants and bars in some states, yet we throw up our hands and claim impotence in our efforts to control porn. We can’t even keep it out of our public libraries! It seems we are unable to think of any solution, so we do nothing.

From now on, unless we have some kind of revolution or the installation of a dictator who has the power to chop off the hands of those who possess or produce porn, it’s here, and it’s widely available. Get over it! Sure you can regret that we cannot control this. Of course, you can do your best to keep it out of your life. I’m not saying we should give any indication at all that we accept this horrible environment that has been thrust upon us.

Most of us hate this deep injury to our civility. The least we can do is think of some way to lessen it.

Let’s face another fact: women are ill-served by allowing themselves to be filmed while performing the most intimate of activities, but they sure aren’t victims! There are thousands of them, maybe hundreds of thousands of women, young and old, who for some reason think it’s just fine to be a part of this scourge.

Being ill-served and engaging in harmful, risky activity has never stopped prostitutes from doing what they do. Obvious facts about the dangers are not going to stop the actors and actresses from appearing in porn flicks. But, we can lay on a heavy financial burden, just like we tax anyone else who’s engaged in a high profit enterprise. Maybe fewer will be available if we make it tough enough. Let’s take away the financial benefit.

At a time when government officials are pulling out all the stops to dream up taxes and penalties that honest, hardworking, decent citizens must pay, this idea seems like a no-brainer. If they can put cameras on tops of poles to catch those who run red lights, don’t tell me they can’t figure out how to tax porn and all who benefit from it.

Let’s tax porn back into the dark alley where it belongs.

[Zon]

Wong. I never read any of Ayn Rand's books.

[truenospinzone]

That's a keeper that will serve well to discredit you and further show you as a raving lunatic

It certainly made my home page...

[Hemingway's Ghost]

since porn is not entitled to constitutionally protected free speech.

Yes it is. Pornography means nothing in a legal sense. The word for which you're struggling is "obscenity." Anything that's not legally obscene enjoys First Amendment protection.

[Lorianne]

Hundreds of billions of dollars are made each year on the “sales” of horrible things, images that most of us want to keep away not only from our children, but from our communities."

I share your concern about porn but I disagree with your premise the most of us want a stop to it. This is simply not born out by the facts. In order for porn to be as successuful as it is, millions if not billions of people have to consume it. That is why it is so prevalent. I have no doubt the m/billions of people, even those who even publically decry porn, privately indulge in it.

Hiding from the facts won't supress them.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Athens and Rome both turned "prude" as they declined.

Of course. People repent when things get bad enough....too late, too often.

[BluesDuke]

I recall Norman Podhoretz, writing in his book The Bloody Crossroads, words to the effect that he found it entirely possible to admire the execution of a work even as he similarly deplored whatever idea the work sought to express; and, conversely, that he found it entirely possible to admire the idea the work sought to express while deploring what he thought poor execution. He spoke of literature, but those thoughts could well enough apply to any art work, real or purported.

Years ago, I had seen enough of Mapplethorpe's work that was not notably of the more infamous homoerotic variety to know that he was, really, a talented enough photographer. Of course, he would be neither the first nor the last to deploy a pronounced enough talent toward the expression of grotesque or, shall we say, perverse ideas or aspirations. But it is one thing for the art world to man the parapets on behalf of dubious art and something else again for the State to deny their right to do so, or for the State to compel the citizenry to finance the production or exhibition of dubious art (we allow for distinctions in taste - or lack thereof, if you prefer) by way of disbursements of the tax dollars of which the State already extorts too many. (In other words, among other things...decommission the National Endowment for the Arts, anyone?)

[chudogg]

Wong. I never read any of Ayn Rand's books.

Well im gonna call BULL**** on that one. Half the stuff you wrote in your posts sound like they came straight out of Atlas Shrugged.

[Zon]

I have no reason to lie to you. Think about it, why would a person lie about reading a best selling author. They'd have nothing to gain. Perhaps if the lived under a totalitarian or communist State they'd have cause to keep quite, but certainly not here in the USA.

You're not the first person to incorrectly assume that I have read Ayn Rand. Perhaps what she wrote is universally applicable and logical if one does their own research and critical thinking instead of buying into the dogma of external authorities. Leastwise, that's how I came upon my knowledge. And none of my research included any of Rand's books.

 BTW, I take it you disagree with her work.

[Windsong]

Also, since it is impossible to know for certain/fact whether the founding fathers and drafters of the U.S. constitution and Bill of Rights would stand for or against the Constitution of the Universe if they were alive today it is impossible for what I wrote to be a lie. For it to be a lie a person must knowingly contradict a fact. As I said, I stand by what I wrote; that the founding fathers would agree with the Constitution of the Universe.

You ARE aware of the rather blatant (and glowing) contradiction in this statement? You in one sentence state that you dont know if they would approve of Wally's "Constitution of the Universe (i.e. a fancy worded cultic essay based on athiesm and anti-Christian elements) and yet in the next say that you KNOW they would be for it.

No anarchist here for I subscribe to government that is limited to upholding and protecting individual rights and property rights.

Let me guess..government withOUT an IRS? Without taxes? How do you intend to fund the miltary? We all know of Wally's law breaking regarding the IRS and his failure to pay HIS share. If you Zonheads had your way, we wouldnt HAVE a military from which to strike terrorism in its collective asses. We wouldn't HAVE a Navy SEAL program, nor a Ranger program, or a Green Beret program or any program that involved the use of "FORCE" which you seem to be so arduously opposed.

That you chose to side with the IRS in it's crimes against Dr. Ward is no surprise to me.

Another misguided assumption on your part. I don't favor the IRS anymore than anyone else, but anyone with half an ass of a brain can figure out you anti-Christian pipsqueaks would be far worse than the Taliban if you ever assumed the Executive Seat.

Libertarian in the White House? -------> When Pigs Fly.

[Windsong]

"By the way, a phone-book thick publication is not a pamphlet. "The Book" is over a thousand pages and sells for under a hundred dollars."

Actually, I am not surprised at this. Back in 1988, I remember them sending me some "free" info on this. It was expensive then too. And I also recall them spouting off that they were going to, in 10 years or less, surpass IBM in sales. IBM! Guess what. They didnt! Neither have they achieved "biological immortality" (insert Twilight Zone music here). Cults, free-loaders, and hypocrites ("integrated honesty"?? Puh-lease!) come and go and are never in short supply in a country where freedom reigns. Re: the porn issue... I agree with what another poster said (whose name escapes me at the moment), and that is if the Founders could peer into a crystal ball and see the sort of souless garbage that would pass for "freedom of speech" these days, they would have written an entirely different Constitution.

Incidentally, if you have been here since 98, why not divulge a bit more personal info on yourself? After all, that would be the "honest" thing to do, no?

[Zon]

Incidentally, if you have been here since 98, why not divulge a bit more personal info on yourself?

I like my privacy. Especially from dishonest people that would rather attack and lie than be honest and discuss.

After all, that would be the "honest" thing to do, no?

Self-protection is the honest thing to do. There's no way you get to define what is honest. Not when you don't give a second thought to lying through your teeth and accuse me and or Neo-Tech of prohibiting a military despite you most likely having read a post that said I and Neo-Tech agree with having/needing a military.

In fact, your dishonesty grants me a free pass on never responding to you because you have demonstrated no respect toward me. Thus you don't even deserve me telling you the time of day. So why do I respond? Someday you'll know the answer.

[Zon]

You ARE aware of the rather blatant (and glowing) contradiction in this statement?

Yes. Maybe I'd be wrong. Maybe I'd be right. Obviously I think I'd be right.

NRST.  Most likely you have seen the following or similar as I have posted it several times. You may have even  commented on it before. Anyways this will answer your silly military straw man that you fabricated just so that you could kick the stuffing out of it.

Politics is not the solution, it's the problem. Honest business and science is the solution. It has always been the solution.

War of Two Worlds
Value Creators versus Value Destroyers

The first thing civilization must have is business/science. It's what the family needs so that its members can live creative, productive, happy lives. Business/science can survive, even thrive without government/bureaucracy.

Government/bureaucracy cannot survive without business/science. In general, business/science and family is the host and government/bureaucracy is a parasite.

Keep valid government services that protect individual rights and property. ...Military defense, FBI, CIA, police and courts. With the rest of government striped away those few valid services would be several fold more efficient and effective than they are today. 

Underwriters Laboratory is a private sector business that has to compete in a capitalist market. Underwriters laboratory is a good example of success where government fails.

Any government agency that is a value to people and society -- which there are but a few -- could much more effectively serve people by being in the private sector where competition demands maximum performance.

Wake up! They are the parasites. We are the host. We don't need them. They need us.

* * *

We wouldn't HAVE a Navy SEAL program, nor a Ranger program, or a Green Beret program or any program that involved the use of "FORCE" which you seem to be so arduously opposed.

Initiation of force I am against. Obviously there are times when in the process of self-defense that force must be used. Of course, The Constitution of the Universe that I posted at 49  and you responded to at 89, in Article 2 it states: "Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Article 1"

Is your reading comprehension really that deficient or are you just playing dumb?

don't favor the IRS anymore than anyone else, but anyone with half an ass of a brain can figure out you anti-Christian pipsqueaks would be far worse than the Taliban if you ever assumed the Executive Seat.

This is the second thread you have proclaimed that I was anti-Christian. I'm not and the last time you did this I challenged you to post any quote of mine that was anti-Christian and you couldn't. I am anti-Crusades, anti-Dark Ages and anti-priest-pedophile. Perhaps you think when I say those you think I'm anti-Christian. If so, then I guess that makes you pro-priest-pedophile.

Libertarian in the White House? -------> When Pigs Fly.

You're probably right about that.

Neo-Tech in the White House? Two words; President Bush. 'Nuf said.

[Protagoras]

I concider this article to be pornographic. It should be heavily taxed.

[Protagoras]

But it doesn't mean the goverment should take the role of forcing people to behave in moral ways or else.

If you disagree with censorship, you embrace pornography. Didn't you read the comment of the mope who brought his anti-libertarian agenda to the front with this article? It's the first post.

[Protagoras]

The Taliban punishes what they consider to be immoral but they don't try to make money off of it.

The tactics are different, but not the goal.

And notice that the only reason the author wants to go the tax route on the issue is because the court said he could no longer point guns at the people who view it.

[Zon]

And notice that the only reason the author wants to go the tax route on the issue is because the court said he could no longer point guns at the people who view it.

A milder, albeit more pernicious form of initiation of force than threats of fine and jail.

[Protagoras]

I'm completely against any and all taxes. I'm overtaxed.

Which raises the question about how these geniuses are going to collect this tax from the internet providers of porn located all over the world. Just think of what the next steps would have to be. Does the word "China" ring a bell?

[Protagoras]

Legalize it all and tax it.

Any thoughts on how to collect it from the far reaches of the world?

[Protagoras]

A milder, albeit more pernicious form of initiation of force than threats of fine and jail.

Yes, but not by choice. The first choice is always the threat of violence.