blog

FPN Opposes the so-called “Child Internet Safety and Protection Act”

SUMMARY:
Senator Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., recently proposed a bill in the U.S. Senate calling for the federal government to impose a 25% excise tax on pornographic websites. The bill, introduced as the “˜Child Internet Safety and Protection Act of 2005′, has been touted as a countermeasure to growing online porn use by minors. According to the bill, the revenue generated from the porn tax would be deposited in a “˜trust fund’ to provide funding for efforts to stem and combat internet pornography-related crimes against children. This policy paper explains Family Policy Network’s (FPN) opposition to such legislation.

BACKGROUND:
In the past decade, there have been instances when Congress has tried to enact legislation to curb online access to pornography by children. These attempts, the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and the Child Online Protection Act of 1998, were largely unsuccessful in that the United States Supreme Court ruled them as unconstitutional on the basis of restricting free speech.
The Communications Decency Act of 1996 was a broadly sweeping law that forbade, in part, the “˜knowing’ online distribution of “˜indecent’ materials to children. The CDA sought to restrict any and all persons from the dissemination of pornography to children. In the Supreme Court decision Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997)(521 U.S. 844) the court ruled the bill unconstitutional because it restricted freedom of speech.
The next attempt came in 1998 with the Child Online Protection Act which narrowed the focus and specifically prohibited commercial pornographers from allowing their sites to be accessed by children. Soon after it was passed, a court injunction blocked the federal government from enforcing and upholding the new law. Repeated appeals to the courts finally wound up at the U.S. Supreme Court which determined its unconstitutionality.
The only federal law to crack down on these purveyors of smut targeting children has been the Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2000 which was a totally different approach to curbing the problem. Instead of prohibiting the public (CDA) or commercial pornographers (COPA) from sending or allowing children access to porn; CIPA mandated that public libraries that receive federal funding install internet filtering software for their patrons, many of whom are minors.

LEGISLATIVE TEXT:
The following language is comprised of the most significant excerpts of the Child Internet Safety and Protection Act of 2005:

The purpose of this Act is to”“(1) set tighter age verification standards to block minors from entering Internet pornography sites; and
(2) provide funding and support to law enforcement efforts to combat Internet and pornography related crimes against children.

Imposition of Tax- There is imposed on amounts charged by a regulated pornographic Web site for individuals to receive the display or distribution of pornography though the Internet a tax equal to 25 percent of the amounts so charged.

REASONS WHY FPN OPPOSES S1507:
Why this; why now? These two questions must be answered to fully understand the reason why Family Policy Network opposes this bill. Categorically, Blanche Lincoln is considered by many to be a moderate democrat because of her right-leaning positions on immigration and the death penalty (1); but she has consistently proven herself to be at odds with the core issues to which true conservatives hold dear. In 2004, Lincoln opposed efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution to permanently define marriage in America as between one man and one woman. (2) As a freshman senator, Lincoln voted against making it a crime to harm an unborn baby in the commission of a violent crime. (3) Although past attempts by some lawmakers to curb the dissemination of pornography have been met with support from many Americans, the fact that federal courts have routinely rejected any efforts to restrict online porn should raise the question of why a Democratic senator is going to the trouble to get a bill passed that, based on past precedent, will most likely be ruled unconstitutional anyway. The question becomes all the more apparent in an age when Democrats, in order to stay in office, are doing everything possible to portray themselves as moderates and centrists. But the truth is that Lincoln has already shown her true colors with her votes. Lincoln also voted to include sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes, even though murder is already a capital offense. (4) True conservatives should question her ardor. Is this a genuine attempt by Senator Lincoln to strike a blow to online purveyors of pornography? Or is it another political feint designed to throw voters off her liberal scent?
Even if Senator Lincoln’s intentions are sterling, her proposed tax is irresponsible at best. Even more important than the ulterior motives of the bill’s sponsor are the ramifications of levying a tax on filth payable to the United States federal government. The ill-conceived notion of subsidizing government operations with the revenue created by the online porn industry will lead to an unhealthy dependence on the very material that the legislation was written to restrict. Thus, in order to protect children from porn, the federal government will rely on the continuation of immorality and vice to garner the funds necessary to protect said children. This classic case of “the ends justify the means” will only lead to the federal government’s justification and veiled encouragement of this sin amongst adults so that it can glean the profits of an industry that destroys lives and families.

Footnotes:

  1. Bill HR 3838 ; vote number 1994-348HR on Jul 22, 1994; Bill HR 4092 ; vote number 1994-107 on Apr 14, 1994
  2. AR Senate Debate in Arkansas News Bureau Oct 29, 2004
  3. Unborn Victims of Violence Act; Bill S.1019/HR.1997 ; vote number 2004-63 on March 25, 2004
  4. Bill S.2549 ; vote number 2000-136 on Jun 20, 2000