Alabama to Pass Porn Tax

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yes, watch as the Alabama government, now dependent on porn revenue, desperately attempts to get its residents to buy and produce as much adult films as possible. The Governor of Alabama, amidst a budget crisis, will have to got television and plead that unless every Alabaman does his or her civic duty and masturbates to premium pornpgraphic services twice a day; the education budget gets it.

That isn't something I'm concerned about and I hope I didn't imply that it is.

[/]

Yes, watch as the Alabama government, now dependent on porn revenue, desperately attempts to get its residents to buy and produce as much adult films as possible. The Governor of Alabama, amidst a budget crisis, will have to got television and plead that unless every Alabaman does his or her civic duty and masturbates to premium pornpgraphic services twice a day; the education budget gets it.

The education budget gets it in the class.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Nah I'm not mocking you or anything, just where my mind takes me, lol.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Finally, a policy that Christian fundamentalists and feminists can agree on! Sex haters of the world, unite!

Yeah, feminists (who all think the same, natch) are totally sex-haters who want nothing more to tax porn.

I'd say "stop living in the 1970s" but I'm not convinced your statement was true even back then (less false, maaaybe).

I feel for TNF. Having to find something to hate and despise about every subset of the left that isn't his own minuscule outfit can be a strenuous work.

I feel for you. Your entire brand of 'leftism' has so thoroughly digested feminist sectoralism that it prevents you from thinking beyond the bounds of it. It dumbs down your ability to analyze a situation, look for its causes, and propose solutions that don't involve becoming yet another accessory of the bourgeois state.

Pretty hilarious, considering your entire worldview is conditioned by the writings of a man who lived two centuries ago, and your cutting-edge analysis of the present situation is basically to say that everything is a "logical conclusion of capitalism".

Weird thing is, Marx predicted you'd say that.

Truly he is our only guide in these dark days.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Finally, a policy that Christian fundamentalists and feminists can agree on! Sex haters of the world, unite!

Yeah, feminists (who all think the same, natch) are totally sex-haters who want nothing more to tax porn.

I'd say "stop living in the 1970s" but I'm not convinced your statement was true even back then (less false, maaaybe).

I feel for TNF. Having to find something to hate and despise about every subset of the left that isn't his own minuscule outfit can be a strenuous work.

I feel for you. Your entire brand of 'leftism' has so thoroughly digested feminist sectoralism that it prevents you from thinking beyond the bounds of it. It dumbs down your ability to analyze a situation, look for its causes, and propose solutions that don't involve becoming yet another accessory of the bourgeois state.

Pretty hilarious, considering your entire worldview is conditioned by the writings of a man who lived two centuries ago, and your cutting-edge analysis of the present situation is basically to say that everything is a "logical conclusion of capitalism".

Weird thing is, Marx predicted you'd say that.

It was an an early draft of Kapital.

[DC Al Fine]

I don't really see any conceivable legitimate defense of porn as it exists as an industry even within a 'sex-positive' framework that doesn't mind it as a concept; as such, though I'm inclined to say that this is an FF move, there's something faintly unseemly about making that industry a revenue base.

Basically this.

Although, I'd suggest to Maddy that the "making the industry a revenue base" is far less problematic than it is for say, gambling, which has basically turned into a giant regressive tax and transfer program in some states.

[DavidB.]

Bad tax, for reasons TNF pointed out. The government should refrain from declaring "sinful" (and acting likewise in terms of policy) acts that consenting adults perform in their bedrooms. Sure, the industry is nasty, but that's for individuals to decide.

[SWE]

I'll stop 'lumping all feminists together' when feminism, an ideology that designates the key conflict in society to be that between men and women, adopts a materialist outlook and realizes that the oppression and double exploitation of women (in the workplace and at home) is the result of class society, not a fictional, homogeneous block of evil men that seeks to exploit and oppress women just for the hell of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_feminism

[Thunderbird is the word]

HP

[Murica!]

I'll stop 'lumping all feminists together' when feminism, an ideology that designates the key conflict in society to be that between men and women, adopts a materialist outlook and realizes that the oppression and double exploitation of women (in the workplace and at home) is the result of class society, not a fictional, homogeneous block of evil men that seeks to exploit and oppress women just for the hell of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcha-feminism

[Intell]

Meh Tax it, better than a sales tax, or putting this tax as an income tax, I'd rather increase the taxes for the rich though.

[Simfan34]

I don't really see any conceivable legitimate defense of porn as it exists as an industry even within a 'sex-positive' framework that doesn't mind it as a concept; as such, though I'm inclined to say that this is an FF move, there's something faintly unseemly about making that industry a revenue base.

My feelings exactly.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

I don't really see any conceivable legitimate defense of porn as it exists as an industry even within a 'sex-positive' framework that doesn't mind it as a concept; as such, though I'm inclined to say that this is an FF move, there's something faintly unseemly about making that industry a revenue base.

My feelings exactly.

Same.  I tend to feel similarly when it comes to all types of "sin" taxes.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

They won't be taxing the porn sites, just brick and mortar porn.  I'd love to have them define porn in the law, but the tax isn't surprising or horrific.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Facially Unconstitutional.

"Indeed, this case involves a more disturbing use of selective taxation than Minneapolis Star, because the basis on which Arkansas differentiates between magazines is particularly repugnant to First Amendment principles: a magazine's tax status depends entirely on its content. Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.

... In order to determine whether a magazine is subject to sales tax, Arkansas' enforcement authorities must necessarily examine the content of the message that is conveyed.... Such official scrutiny of the content of publications as the basis for imposing a tax is entirely incompatible with the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press."

Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 229-30 (1987), Internal quotations and citations omitted.

[CapoteMonster]

Facially Unconstitutional.

"Indeed, this case involves a more disturbing use of selective taxation than Minneapolis Star, because the basis on which Arkansas differentiates between magazines is particularly repugnant to First Amendment principles: a magazine's tax status depends entirely on its content. Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.

... In order to determine whether a magazine is subject to sales tax, Arkansas' enforcement authorities must necessarily examine the content of the message that is conveyed.... Such official scrutiny of the content of publications as the basis for imposing a tax is entirely incompatible with the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press."

Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 229-30 (1987), Internal quotations and citations omitted.

I agree. In theory this would be an FF move to take on the ugly porn industry but this law could easily extend to explicit music or literature that isn't at all commercializing acts of sex.

[dead0man]

HP, just like all sin taxes.



and the weird hijack about feminists and porn.  Some of them (the cool ones) are ok with female sexuality, but the majority are uptight prudes.  At least in my experience.

[eric82oslo]

Obvious FF. We use the tax money to buy better plots for porn.

Agreed.

[eric82oslo]

Um will this not increase traffic to Internet porn sites?

Hopefully.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

If this expands, or if any legit posters join from Alabama, will the moderators be closing PAPOY? It might be a bit suspicious if people are buying election data to support a site that hosts that just to avoid paying a sales tax or whatever this is. I think we could think of a better cover than election data at the very least, you guys.

[Torie]

Facially Unconstitutional.

"Indeed, this case involves a more disturbing use of selective taxation than Minneapolis Star, because the basis on which Arkansas differentiates between magazines is particularly repugnant to First Amendment principles: a magazine's tax status depends entirely on its content. Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.

... In order to determine whether a magazine is subject to sales tax, Arkansas' enforcement authorities must necessarily examine the content of the message that is conveyed.... Such official scrutiny of the content of publications as the basis for imposing a tax is entirely incompatible with the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press."

Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 229-30 (1987), Internal quotations and citations omitted.

Yup, this puppy is DOA. Not that its unconstitutionality will slow Alabama down.

[DavidB.]

Facially Unconstitutional.

Not sure if I would formulate it like this.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I wouldn't be so sure this tax would be DOA constitutionally. Scalia, who wrote the dissent in AWP is the only remaining justice from then. The only real question is whether SCOTUS has turned enough to the right for his viewpoint to prevail. Probably not, but a tax targeting porn shops would have a real chance.