|
Porn Policing: The Good, the Bad, and the Very Busy
Again, good porn regulation vs. bad porn regulation...
Senator Blanche Lincoln, a democrat
from Arkansas, plans to propose legislation that would - among
other things - tax all sales stemming from adult sites at an
additional 25% (at
http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=news_ar
ticle&sid=9597). As much as I’d like to say that the proposed
bill is totally unconstitutional (showing preferential treatment
against one form of Free Speech versus another) and would never
go through, the way court decisions are going against the adult
industry lately, it wouldn’t surprise me if it did.
The first part of the bill would call for more stringent
age-verification requirements before accessing adult website
material. The additional 25% taxation constitutes Title II (the
second part) of the bill. Evidently, the tax-generated revenue
would be used for funding such activities as (not surprisingly)
keeping kids away from porn in the future; which is in keeping
with the spirit of Title I of the bill.
If this bill became law, it would be like all car insurance
companies across the country raising your premiums and that of
everyone solely in your demographic (whether you define yourself
according to your race, gender, creed, sexual orientation,
religion, or color) so that they could build safer cars in the
future; vehicles that were less likely to wind up in car
accidents. All of this because several people whom you can
identify with on some level, have caused accidents in the past.
Call it cutting "high-risk" profiles off at the knees.
Senator Lincoln is purported to have drawn the bill in the name
of being a good parent, and not as a politician. But her
political career cannot be totally taken out of the equation
insofar as her motives are concerned, and here’s why. Parents of
both sexes are busier now than it seems at anytime in history. I
think it would be safe to say that Congressional members don’t
have a lot of leisure time on their hands. On top of that (and I
will throw her a bone here), the internet is an incredibly
difficult realm to police. On some level it would make sense to
invest money where time is at a premium.
In other words, while the busy parent should always find time to
monitor his or her child’s activities (whether in real time or
in cyberspace), a much more cost-effective program (in terms of
time and money) that would help the parent do that is always
welcome. But not a program that does so wrongfully on the law
abider’s dime.
As much as the need exists to keep minors away from porn, we
don’t need to rob Peter (and Andrew too, mind you) to pay Paul.
In effect, the bill punishes both the legitimate adult
businessman AND the porn consumer, who is only exercising his
First Amendment rights, in its efforts to do the right thing.
Four, five, or six percent seems like a surcharge meant to
combat illicit activities. Twenty-five percent, on the other
hand, sounds like disciplinary action to me; against folks who
have not broken the law. And in the end, the bill just has the
earmarks of the crusade to slowly grind down the adult industry
at all costs.
If you really want to see law, punishment, and pornography
shielding done right, examine Senator Hillary Clinton’s pr
oposed bill
(http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3267154).
Fining unethical video game retailers who attempt to sell
underage children adult-rated and mature-rated games actually
makes sense. It rightfully places blame and due burden on guilty
parties.
Now, if a kid is bound and determined to play a banned game (and
isn't prohibiton just the way to generate juvenile interest?),
he’ll somehow get his hands on the game. Howvever, he doesn't
have to be handed inappropriate material on a silver platter;
along with a receipt, a "Come Again" card, and a gaming pamphlet
all in one nylon shortbag.
Incidentally, as of the time that this article was being
written, the Federal Trade Commission has taken 7 adult
companies to court for unlawful marketing practices: not
labeling sexually-laden content e-mail (speaking of Title I of
the afore-mentioned legislative proposal) prior to dispersal.
That is how you keep porn from minors.
I’m not saying by any stretch of the imagination that we, as a
society, shouldn’t do as much as we can to protect the underage.
But you can only do so much in the name of prevention. Anything
much more than that is at the cost of a pound of First Amendment
flesh, and is not equal to the pound of cure it was originally
intended to be.
|
Porn Stars Web