A Proposed Bill In Virginia Would Require An Additional Fee To Access Obscene Internet Content

Submitted by: daegog 2 weeks ago in News & Politics Tech


The state of Virginia is trying to make you pay to jack off... Pornhub better send in some lawyers.

An excerpt from WRIC:

Supporters of House Bill 1592, also known as the Human Trafficking Prevention Act, are looking to reduce trafficking by making pornography less accessible on the internet.

The bill would require a filter for providers of devices that have access to the internet like your phone or computer. Users who are of legal age would have to pay a $20 fee to remove the filter on any new device bought.

Jessica Neely, who is a human trafficking survivor, is in favor of the proposed bill.

“By public education, the next generation is very well informed that exploitation has consequences,” Neely said. “Endorsing this bill, getting behind it and making sure it passes, your state — Virginia — makes the choice that girls like myself can choose recovery.”
There are 55 comments:
Male 755
How is porn linked to human trafficking? Has it been shown that pornography watchers are necessarily human traffickers?
0
Reply
Male 41,418
toetagmodel2    Everyone knows porno is a gateway to  owning slaves..... DUH
0
Reply
Male 755
Gerry1of1 Learn something new every day.
0
Reply
Male 591
Social engineering by way of taxes or fees should be illegal. Seattle's sweet drink tax is only enriching stores that lie just outside the border.  Maybe with this new tax Playboy will make a comeback?
0
Reply
Male 15,659
Why is Mia Kalifa so famous? I haven't seen any of her work and I'm no stranger to porn. I don't feel any particular attraction for her either.
0
Reply
Male 740
Im surprised none of you have picked up on the fact this creates a defacto porn watchers list. People just need to acquire the list of who paid. Thats just asking for embarressment and blackmail. Unfortunately UK is introducing something similiar in April without the charge. Pornhub's mindgeek will have the list and be defacto gatekeepers to anyone in UK watching porn.
1
Reply
Male 41,418
Can you get a discount if you only go to really sleazy websites and not the high end classy ones like .

"Goatse Girls" shouldn't cost as much as "Beverly Hills Beaver"
0
Reply
Male 4,771
Reminds me of an old joke:


"Son, you'll go blind if you masturbate too much'


"Dad, I'm over here"
1
Reply
Male 1,989
I don't know what is more disturbing to me the fact that they are trying to pass such a stupid bill or the fact that I know the girls name in the pic.
2
Reply
Male 5,649
casaledana Best comment all week.
0
Reply
Male 3,524
casaledana 
Do tell.
0
Reply
Male 4,771
captkangaroo Mia Khalifa, people seem to go wild over her...
0
Reply
Male 3,524
daegog 
Had to google her - i had the erroneous impression from your op that this was someone you knew. I'm guessing now, that is not the case.
0
Reply
Male 1,765
daegog thanks, I was going to ask, for a friend.
0
Reply
Male 273
woodyville06 Thanks buddy.
0
Reply
Male 418
Step One:  Desire more funding through taxation
Step Two:  Choose low-hanging fruit as target of said taxation.  Eg. Sin tax.
Step Three:  Create moral argument in lieu of empirical evidence
Step Four:  Find spokesperson to push forward bill based on emotional/anecdotal basis
Step Five:  Give said spokesperson emotional connotation, giving moralistic credibility.  Eg. Survivor
Step Six:  Use spokesperson for PR purposes.  Ie.  Useful idiot.
Step Seven:  Engage resisters with emotionally-charged rhetoric, strawman arguments.  Stifle critics.
Step Eight:  Pass bill.  Reap extra funds.
0
Reply
Male 1,765
Beaverfever you missed a step - Step Nine: Repeat.
0
Reply
Male 418
woodyville06 Yep, rinse/repeat.  Essentially the blueprint now for politics.  
0
Reply
Female 4,875
30-50 a year will get you an IP blocking service.
0
Reply
Male 5,649
They want to reduce human trafficking by making people more sexually frustrated? That is the government for you.
0
Reply
Male 1,765
markust123 because prohibition was such a success in controlling the ill effects of alcohol...
0
Reply
Male 4,236
markust123 ^this

This is how I have always felt about porn, masturbation and prostitution.  Placing it in a negative light does nothing but build frustrations and the shady underground that eventually appears.
0
Reply
Male 41,418
A lot of hackers will make money removing the filter for $5 or 10.
0
Reply
Male 41,418
I see lawyers getting rich fighting this.
0
Reply
Male 1,765
Gerry1of1 that is the universal constant.
0
Reply
Male 15,659
(1) unconstitutional
(2) unenforceable (VPNs)
(3) political suicide

Having said all that, look how shit the UK's porn laws are.
1
Reply
Male 269
Draculya Mostly political suicide, I think. Modern politicians have never experienced the tidal wave of sh** they will get when they try to cut off a population addicted to free porn...
0
Reply
Male 4,771
Another group of out of touch politicians.

40 years ago, when porn was back alley bookstores and nudie girls dancing for creeps in overcoats in a stall on the highway, this bill would have passed easily.

In the Internet era, right or wrong, its a part of every day life for millions of folks.  Making people pay 20 bucks for porn is bullshit, because there is no correlation between watching porn and trafficking people.

You might as well have a tax on people driving red cars or eating Taco Bell.
2
Reply
Male 41,418
daegog    There are taxes on red cars - sales tax. Fuel tax. Registration fees, renewals.
Of course all the other colour cars pay those too.  In some states, fast food has sales tax.
0
Reply
Male 4,771
Gerry1of1 Of course there are taxes on red cars, but this would be an additional tax ONLY on red cars.

To show how they are forcing people that use only one aspect of the internet to pay unfairly.  They aren't taxing people who go to bomb making websites, home made fully automatic websites, social media websites, etc.

Same with fast food, only people who use Taco Bell would pay the extra, not the burger king or outback steakhouse folks.
0
Reply
Male 4,664
Looks like a shakedown alright. The bill claims the 20 bucks goes into some George Castanza creation called The Virginia Prevention of Human Trafficking Victim Fund. Who knows, may do some good but most likely just another layer of bureaucracy to feed. 

https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?ses=181&typ=bil&val=HB1592
1
Reply
Male 269
trimble That's how they get ya. Remember Social Security?
0
Reply
Male 1,765
johndplorable Porn tax.
0
Reply
Male 4,236
So, according to the actual name of the act, all porn is derived from human trafficking?  I would love to see the statistics on how they concluded that.
2
Reply
Male 1,765
kalron27 they are manufacturing the statistics as we speak.  
Human trafficking is the “offense”. They are parading around their representative “victim” and their assertion is porn is the impetus that drives the demand and the interweb is the vehicle.
All this to justify a porn tax.  They aren’t trying to eliminate it, which is what they should want if it was so bad.  But for a small fee they will look the other way.
2
Reply
Male 4,583
Janet Reno tried that and it was ruled unconstitutional
0
Reply
Male 1,470
If Net Neutrality stays in effect, isn't this illegal by that?  This is pretty much the exact thing Net Neutrality is stopping.  Making people pay extra for certain internet traffic and not others.
1
Reply
Male 10,939
I'm fine with this if the $20 actually goes to meaningful human trafficking prevention.
0
Reply
Male 269
holygod I would agree, but one thing we can learn from 100+ years of modern American taxation is that the money will not go where it is supposed to go.  
0
Reply
Male 2,773
holygod Come on dawg!  You know it won't.  At best out of that 20 we'd be lucky to see 2 actually go towards prevention and of that 2 none of it will actually be meaningful.  
1
Reply
Male 4,583
holygod th porblem with "human trafficking prevention" is the sexism. You would  thing "Human" would  mean all people but no, they only focus on girls. Boys have it far worse but no one cares. 
0
Reply
Male 21,310
Define obscene. Religious programming on television is obscene to me.
2
Reply
Male 41,418
fancylad      This is obscene.   Funny but obscene.

3
Reply
Male 1,765
Gerry1of1 I was just thinking: not only is that obscene, but tax dollars paid for it

Mind=Blown
0
Reply
Male 9,021
fancylad Define obscene. 

To some, this is obscene, to others, not:


To some, this is obscene, to others, not:


The great thing about taxing a subjective term is you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean.
1
Reply
Male 739
megrendel Hey! NSFW tag, please.  What the hell do you think you are doing showing ankles like that.  This is exactly why we need moderators.  

What if someone's kid walked by and saw that?
1
Reply
Male 9,021
  1. Sounds like they came up with a new 'tax' idea. Which is, of course, what Guv'mint is best at.
  2. Of course "Obscene" would be defined by those in power....and subject to change at their whim.


0
Reply
Male 10,939
megrendel I've never understood the automatic and complete disdain people have for paying taxes. I feel good about paying taxes for 2 reasons:

1. I make enough money to pay taxes which means I can also provide for my family.
2. I feel pride in providing funds that help create and sustain what I believe to be the greatest society that has ever existed. I like driving on good roads and seeing nice parks and knowing I had a tiny part in that.

You view the "guv'mint" as "others", an enemy group stealing your money. I look at them as just a collection of us working to decide how to improve our society with the money we give them. 

Is there misuse of money? Of course. Is there corruption? Of course. However, when you stop viewing them as an enemy it makes it easier to see those problems as specific instances that need to be remedied versus an indication that the whole of it is bad.
0
Reply
Male 269
holygod There's a place in the middle on this issue: While I do not have an automatic disdain for paying any taxes, I'll admit to a knee-jerk reaction to any proposed new taxes. I agree with paying reasonable taxes to maintain an excellent quality of life and security for myself and helping others. But I also believe we already pay more than enough taxes. In 2015, the average was 30% when you add all taxes and fees.

So when federal employees do something like throw themselves an $823K weekend in Vegas, it makes me not want to share one more dime with the guv'mint. I would probably feel differently if I saw some systematic saving/cost-cutting and better prioritization from our leaders, especially at the Federal level. 
1
Reply
Male 10,939
johndplorable 

1. I want to say how much I have enjoyed you since you started commenting on IAB. It is great having another insightful, articulate, intelligent conservative to fundamentally disgree with cordially. I hope you'll stick around.

2. I think it may be a bit misleading to say the average is 30%. I didn't have time to read the entire article but they seem to start it off averaging by taking the amount of all taxes filed and dividing it by the number of taxes filed. We have such huge wage disparities that I don't think mean average is the best way to do that. I would think median average would give you a better indication of what the average American pays. For example the article says "the average taxpayer's gross income was $71,258" which, while technically accurate, is CLEARLY not representative of what the average American makes. The median income in America was $30,000 in 2016.

3. While $823,000 might seem like a lot of money, as a training retreat for 300 employees, including travel and lodging, that is only $2,700 per employee. That isn't all that extravagant. I used to do trade shows and fortune 500 companies spend over $1,000,000 on just travel and lodging for 1 executive in a year easily. I worked one show where a company paid Bruno Mars around $400,000 plus expenses to do a 1 hour performance. I don't think government should blow their money, but I also understand they need perks and incentives to attract talent just like any other organization.
1
Reply
Male 269
holygod Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate the welcome and look forward to respectfully disagreeing with you on many occasions! Who knows, we may even find common ground. I’ll stick around for a while. I’ve been here for over a decade and suddenly felt compelled to add to the political discussion on IAB. I’m not here to prove anyone wrong; I’m here to express how I see things from the point of view of my life and to learn the views of others. I promise, I do learn and can change my opinion. We all have different lives and lifestyles and I felt there would be more to gain from discussion here rather than a policial site, where people only want to hurl insults. Not that we can’t sling a little mud if the mood strikes us. 

Your rebuttal is accurate and well stated. Median income would indeed give us a better picture of the income distribution in America. To be sure, the less money one makes, the less one pays in taxes, but I would add that the less money one makes, the more essential each dollar becomes. I would further submit that government waste becomes incrementally more offensive, the lower one’s income bracket. 

My feeling is that the private sector may spend its money as it pleases, because that money is derived from selling value to the free market (crony capitalism aside). Government dollars are held to a higher standard in my mind, because they are extracted through taxation, not earned. Yes, the government needs to attract talent, but what else do they need beyond generous Ponzi pensions? (I freely admit I am shifting the argument here. This is a pet peeve of mine.) I see great injustice in taking a dollar from a person who might never be able to retire, to pay the pension of a government employee. I would rather that government wages be raised to competitive levels to attract qualified workers and retirement be the responsibility of the employee (as it is for most of us in the private sector). Thus, each generation pays for its own government and services. Handing the bill to the unborn is obscene to me. 
1
Reply
Male 366
holygod Very well said. Agree 100%. CEO's making 300 times what their lowest tiered workers make, and has to get food stamps to survive, is disgusting. Our society could be so much better than it is. Like back when we had a Meals on Wheels, and EPA.
1
Reply
Male 9,021
holygod I've never understood the automatic and complete disdain people have for paying taxes. 

I have no problem paying taxes.  I DO have a problem for paying taxes that are 1) unnecessary and 2) obviously just a money grab.

One of the responsibilities of being a citizen is paying taxes, to be used for self-defense, infrastructure, social programs, etc.

In conjunction with that responsibility is also the responsibility to try and ensure 1) the taxes are necessary and 2) the tax money is well spent.

In short:
  • Paying taxes to fund our military, improve infrastructure, etc. = Good. 
  • Paying more taxes to fund trying to make Sea monkey's synchronize swim = bullshit. 

In THIS case, I call 'bullshit' and say it's a money-grab and too subjective to be workable.
0
Reply
Male 1,935
megrendel One of the most infuriating things to learn in law school is that the word "obscene" is so subjective that the Supreme Court definition of "obscene" is literally "I know it when I see it." Jacobellis v. Ohio
0
Reply