No taxation without representation!"
Posted on 01/28/2008 11:39:48 AM PST by Snickering Hound
A state lawmaker wants to tax in-room adult movies ordered at hotels to help fund child sex-abuse investigations.
The current version of House Bill 1086, sponsored by Rep. Amy Stephens, R-Monument, would impose a 99-cent fee on all in-room movies ordered at hotels. Stephens, though, said she plans to narrow her proposal to apply to just adult movies.
The money would go into a fund for children's advocacy centers, which counsel sexually abused children and help police and prosecutors interview young victims. There are 14 such centers in Colorado and more than 600 nationally.
Stephens said imposing the fee on adult movies to fund child sex-abuse investigations only makes sense. "Most of our sexual predators in prison are addicted to pornography," she said.
Cathryn Hazouri, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, said the bill violates the First Amendment.
"Adult entertainment is just that. Whether you like it or not, adults have the right to view it," Hazouri said.
A whole new meaning to “Raising Taxes”..........
how about a tax on teachers and boy scout leaders?
They seem to be the biggest threat. When the priests aren’t in the news.
So that’s a .99¢ tax on a full length (heheheh, he said full length) porno movie, which mean that I would only be using about .07¢ of that tax...I never get to the end of porno...know what I mean.
Probabbly creating too much co2, global warming Bush’s fault.
Way to try and abuse the tax code to mold public behavior to your whims.
(puke)
No different than the Dhimmicrat in New Mexico who’s proposed taxing TV’s, video games, etc to get fat kids to excercise.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080125230108.k05u9plm&show_article=1
ping.
Just another stiff tax.
Using tax policy to make people do what you think they should do is wrong, from the left or right.
Typical plan of groups backing a single issue.
This is Romney's area.
Colorado will be flush with money after the Democratic Convention.
What are the politicians going to do when they find out that people have stopped paying $11.99 + tax + fees for a pr0n movie in a hotel when they could get pr0n via the wireless internet for free?
Bingo.
Taxes are not an avenue for social policy.
bamahead: “Way to try and abuse the tax code to mold public behavior to your whims.”
Actually, a state is allowed to tax pretty much whatever they want, so it isn’t really abuse of tax code. However, I agree with you about the use of taxes in an attempt to mold public behavior. It’s all so Huckabee-like.
Tell the government to stay the ^&*( out of our bedrooms - including rented ones.
Now they are coming for the porn freaks.
heh
Hey, if they are going to levy ‘sin taxes’ on other things like cigarettes, why not?
Depends on the state and how the tax code is defined in their constitution, but yeah...I see your point.
I still consider it abuse!
Psst.... "Adult" is a euphemism.
And obscenity isn't protected by the 1st Amendment.
Taxing something gives the government an interest in making a wider market for that something to boost revenue. This measure will backfire.
Honestly, if they put warning labels on cigarettes, I’d suggest that they put warning labels outside and on websites for HOTELS who offer this service, and tell the other patrons that someone in the next room might possibly be watching CHILD PORN, so we’d be careful to avoid these places in hopes we can find family friendly hotels that don’t allow this kind of stuff.
They'll probably go right on collecting the tax long after the cost of implementing and collecting it has exceeded the possible revenues because "it's for the children", while complaining that they need more money.
-PJ
No taxation without representation!"
A whole new meaning to “Raising Taxes”..........
Now they’re taxing inflation.
the tax is so small it won’t do much to change behavior. it’s really so petty...like sticking a middle finger at them.
if you want to reduce porn (or smoking for that matter) high taxes won’t work either because you’ll just create a black market. The way to go is a non-coercive educational campaign.
A bone headed idea.
BINGO. That is one thing that would doom this proposal. Another is the fact that having a tax only on certain types of movies WOULD constitute a form of tax discrimination that would almost certainly fail challenges in court.
Since when have liberals ever objected to raising taxes? If they have a problem singling out hotel porn viewers for additional taxes, why do they have no problem with singling out smokers, highway drivers, strippers or other subsections of the public?
Actually, it’s a pole tax.
Tax sought on hotel porn movies
This is Romney’s area.
Then, ol’ Mitt pokes an eye into an equally wealthy Mormon family —the Marriotts —
ari-freedom: “The way to go is a non-coercive educational campaign.”
It’s an older thread, but I felt your response deserved a...response. Your point about non-coercive government action was very significant. Personally, I think it exemplifies a truly conservative position.
I really want to know why so many Americans, both left and right, have a problem with freedom. Now I personally think porn is a social negative, but there’s something evil about people using government to fight their moral battles for them.
Just about everything done by government today could be done voluntarily through private charity or education campaigns. Don’t like people smoking? How about teaching them about the dangers and encouraging them to smoke responsibly? Isn’t THAT the way of a FREE people?
Here’s another example: A lot of poor people can’t afford college. What’s wrong with the president encouraging people to VOLUNTARILY donate to fund private scholarships? How can some people believe it’s actually more moral to take from one citizen in order to hand it over to another, no matter what the purpose?
That is the way to tyranny, because once you start down this path, there’s literally no government power grab that can’t be justified. There’s always another excuse, like “it’s for the children” or “it’s not fair” or “XY or Z need help.”
Again, I don’t have a thing against helping children or giving people an equal opportunity to achieve. I also don’t think individual liberty justifies any kind of depraved behavior. There are and should be limits, but “there oughta be a law” thinking to every problem, whether by left or right, is destroying our hard-fought freedoms one step at a time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.