Lawmakers in about a dozen states are considering a bill that would block pornography from all new phones and computers unless consumers pay up.
Backers of the porn tax plan to introduce it on the federal level this month.
State Rep. Kelly Townsend (R-Mesa) considered sponsoring a version of the bill in Arizona, but the measure was not introduced this session, her staff confirmed.
Supporters say porn is a public health problem and argue that taxing it would help cut down on a range of issues, including sex trafficking.
“What we know about pornography is that it's addictive. It actually affects the brain,” said Kathleen Winn of the Arizona Anti-Trafficking Network.
“Like any drug, like an addiction, you need more and more and more of it to get the same reaction from it as the first time you saw it. So yes, I absolutely believe pornography is contributing to the growing criminal enterprise of sex trafficking.”
The Human Trafficking Prevention Act would require that all new internet-connected devices be equipped with a porn filter. Consumers who want to unlock the filter would have to pay a one-time fee of $20 on each device.
The tax would be used to fund groups that fight human trafficking, domestic violence, sexual assault and other issues, according to boilerplate language from the act's supporters.
Winn said she supports the legislation as another tool to combat trafficking, but critics say the bill would lead to a massive censorship apparatus.
Others, like Tempe-based attorney Russ Richelsoph, question the constitutionality of such a measure.
“While I'm not advocating pornography, it is a form of speech. It is protected by the First Amendment, and it is a problem if they're trying to create a tax to prevent people from engaging in that form of speech,” he said.
Richelsoph, a firearms enthusiast, said the legislation could open the door to taxes on other kinds of speech.
“If this passes First Amendment muster, what would prevent states that are not friendly to firearms from doing the same thing with regards to websites that have content about firearms?” he said.
Winn sees it differently.
“We have taxes on cigarettes. We have taxes on alcohol. We have taxes on any product that you go and buy. This is a product,” she argued.
The bill has been introduced in some form Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Bill would block porn on new phones, computers unless consumers - CBS 5 - KPHO
and
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/04/states-introduce-dubious-legislation-ransom-internet
Backers of the porn tax plan to introduce it on the federal level this month.
State Rep. Kelly Townsend (R-Mesa) considered sponsoring a version of the bill in Arizona, but the measure was not introduced this session, her staff confirmed.
Supporters say porn is a public health problem and argue that taxing it would help cut down on a range of issues, including sex trafficking.
“What we know about pornography is that it's addictive. It actually affects the brain,” said Kathleen Winn of the Arizona Anti-Trafficking Network.
“Like any drug, like an addiction, you need more and more and more of it to get the same reaction from it as the first time you saw it. So yes, I absolutely believe pornography is contributing to the growing criminal enterprise of sex trafficking.”
The Human Trafficking Prevention Act would require that all new internet-connected devices be equipped with a porn filter. Consumers who want to unlock the filter would have to pay a one-time fee of $20 on each device.
The tax would be used to fund groups that fight human trafficking, domestic violence, sexual assault and other issues, according to boilerplate language from the act's supporters.
Winn said she supports the legislation as another tool to combat trafficking, but critics say the bill would lead to a massive censorship apparatus.
Others, like Tempe-based attorney Russ Richelsoph, question the constitutionality of such a measure.
“While I'm not advocating pornography, it is a form of speech. It is protected by the First Amendment, and it is a problem if they're trying to create a tax to prevent people from engaging in that form of speech,” he said.
Richelsoph, a firearms enthusiast, said the legislation could open the door to taxes on other kinds of speech.
“If this passes First Amendment muster, what would prevent states that are not friendly to firearms from doing the same thing with regards to websites that have content about firearms?” he said.
Winn sees it differently.
“We have taxes on cigarettes. We have taxes on alcohol. We have taxes on any product that you go and buy. This is a product,” she argued.
The bill has been introduced in some form Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Bill would block porn on new phones, computers unless consumers - CBS 5 - KPHO
and
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/04/states-introduce-dubious-legislation-ransom-internet
