US State Proposes Law To Block Porn Unless You Pay A 20 Dollar Fee

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LSU0408
...it seems like something all Americans that are against human trafficking could get behind. Going through funds via porn seems a bit silly, but if it helps, we should be all for it.

I personally give to St. Jude's and Shriner's Hospitals and I think all Americans are against children getting cancer or badly burned.

I think we should charge a premium for people who want to look at sports scores on line and give it to those charities instead. We should be all for it.

I pay a premium to ESPN to have access to all of that via my satellite company. But it appears you've misread the context of my post. It's stupid to use a porn filter to gain the funds, but at least they want to use the funds for combating human trafficking. I still haven't found a credible news source picking up on this story anyways.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: NthOther
Everyone forgets about the abused and emotionally scarred people who staff the industry. Human trafficking is a huge problem associated with pornography.

But no one wants to talk about that.

"Go away. 'Batin."

Who forgets? Human trafficking is not exclusively associated with pornography and I am pretty sure it is pursued by law enforcement.

And you have a problem with it being funded.

There are much better ways to fight the human trafficking system than by paying a tax. People act like there aren't NGOs, nonprofits, and charities that focus strictly on the human trafficking system. Ironically, the conservatives where I live always say we shouldn't be forced to pay taxes towards charitable causes because: 1. charity should be voluntary and 2. that's what charities and other nonprofits are for.

So I don't understand the logic here. Should we also be forced to pay a $20 tax to pay for programs to end starvation in America or not (such as food stamps)? How is the issue of using taxes to pay for social programs any different than using taxes to pay for anti-human trafficking programs?

For the record, I don't have a problem with either approach. I just want to eliminate human trafficking, regardless of the method. But I'm curious if I should start using a religious or moral angle to justify taxes, like this example in the OP? Because it seems like that's the sales pitch that works.

I think using a porn filter enforcement and removal is stupid to begin with, and I couldn't care less about porn. While most seem to be focusing on the porn filter aspect of it, I'm focusing on the human trafficking aspect. I fully understand why there's frustration about using porn.

originally posted by: LSU0408
I pay a premium to ESPN to have access to all of that via my satellite company. But it appears you've misread the context of my post. It's stupid to use a porn filter to gain the funds, but at least they want to use the funds for combating human trafficking. I still haven't found a credible news source picking up on this story anyways.

Where the funds go are irrelevant since the issue is trying to legislate morality, which always fails.

Who gets that 20 bucks?

How long do these politicians think the porn filter will work before a path around it is created. I give it a week.

a reply to: cuckooold

Woah... woah, woah...

Now look, I am assuming that you folks across the pond pay your taxes. Correct?

Why, therefore, does South Carolina of all places, need what is essentially a twenty dollar tax on internet porn? Your tax money should be going toward preventing people trafficking anyway!

They're doing this so they can catch up with watching all pornhub and to get a medal for watching all porn videos.

Atleast it will slow their competitive viewers from winning that medal.

They are trying to legislate against porn in the UK. But none have you have voiced the reasoning like, "just who decides what is and isn't porn"?
Is the written word porn content being put under this umbrella, as there are sites devoted to this? As I've said before, this is a very, very slippery slope to go down and again, what criteria are they going to use to say this or that is pornographic.

originally posted by: crayzeed
But none have you have voiced the reasoning like, "just who decides what is and isn't porn"?

When I saw the thread title, I was thinking if they include doom porn ATS will cease to exist.

originally posted by: NthOther
Everyone forgets about the abused and emotionally scarred people who staff the industry. Human trafficking is a huge problem associated with pornography.

But no one wants to talk about that.

"Go away. 'Batin."

Actually thats everywhere not just in porn.If prostitution was regulated Alot of it would stop.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Who gets that 20 bucks?

How long do these politicians think the porn filter will work before a path around it is created. I give it a week.

LOL try hours.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: Edumakated

How is human trafficking a "bedroom issue"?

Keeping underage Thai girls locked up in there or something?

It's interesting how some people only care about the Constitution when they perceive a threat to their own personal sexual gratification.

Somehow I doubt that's quite what the framers envisioned.

The law is implying that porn = human trafficking.

Regardless of what the legislation may be called or what they claim the intent of the fee to be, it seems unworkable and impractical. If you don't like porn, don't look at it. It really is that simple.

If you are against human trafficking, there are plenty of organizations already seeking to address the issue. Donate your money and time. I fail to see how the South Carolina legislature is going to make a difference charging people to view porn on their own computers.

originally posted by: roadgravel

Who gets that 20 bucks?

Government employees of course!

We The Sheeple should have to pay for their monthly access to ExploitedSheep.com, and SheepzillaScores.com

such a blatantly obvious and transparent cash grab by the state,this is nothing but a sad attempt by the state to try to make some money off of the porn industry.

The state of Virginia wants to sell you access to porn for a one time fee of $20 per computer,politicians have no shame.

a reply to: cuckooold

dey took jer pern

This isn't about censorship, it is about monopoly and making more money. Shut up the competition by burring them and establish a fee for the only source of ___. (However censorship is part of it too.)

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: reldra


Again, my apologies.

That was very nice if you, seagull

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Probably more. They're "sinners", and as such must punish others to make themselves "innocent" again... Or something like that.

Legislating morality. Fails every time.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: cuckooold
US State Proposes Law To Block Porn Unless You Pay A 20 Dollar Fee

What a mistake the civil war was!
We should have just let them go!
Good riddance!

Yeah, you should have but y'all couldn't make it without us.

What, porn?

Well, I have to agree on a certain level, but in reality... yes, 'we' (being California) certainly can (get along without the entire USA)!

On the other hand, you Southerners always can be counted on for irony, and great entertainment!
Perhaps Lincoln saw that?
Nah, he was a genocidal maniac!
Just imagine if any state can divorce the Mutha-load?
The USA will be nothing left than Washington, DC! *__-