Internet Safety and Child Protection Act of 2005

[hm0504]

The Internet Safety and Child Protection Act of 2005 act proposes a 25% tax on subscriptions to web sites that feature pornographic videos and photographs.

Whenever such pornography-related legislation comes up, I always immediately ask myself, how are they defining pornography? Unfortunately, "myself" does not know.

Anyone know if this act directly defines pornography or whether there is an official U.S. government definition? eg. Do they define it as sexually-explicit material?

[hm0504]

The Internet Safety and Child Protection Act of 2005 act proposes a 25% tax on subscriptions to web sites that feature pornographic videos and photographs.

Whenever such pornography-related legislation comes up, I always immediately ask myself, how are they defining pornography? Unfortunately, "myself" does not know.

Anyone know if this act directly defines pornography or whether there is an official U.S. government definition? eg. Do they define it as sexually-explicit material?

[hm0504]

I guess part of the answer to the U.S. government'ss attempt to define pornography is here:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/internet/top...pic=indecency_online (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/internet/topic.aspx?topic=indecency_online)

I'd still like to know how the authors of the bill plan to distinguish between pornography and otherwise.

[MJ_KC]

The lines between what is and is not pornography can't be clearly defined, so that is why the federal courts strike down or place these laws on hold while they are reviewed.

[KetchumMaine]

I'm Confused, I thought downloading porn was illegal. If they tax it, aren't they effectively condoning it?

[hm0504]

Not sure where you live KetchumMaine, but I would think there are very few jurisdictions in the U.S. where downloading porn is illegal. Interesting question though, I wonder if there are any?

[BackpackerBrian]

I always thought MAKING porn is illegal, not downloading it. If downloading it were, then logically selling/buying it would be, and that happens at almost any newsstand.

I remember a Cagney & Lacey episode when I was a kid where they busted a porn set. So much for my "expert-opinion" http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[curmudgeon]

What's 25% oof free?

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BackpackerBrian:
I always thought MAKING porn is illegal, not downloading it. If downloading it were, then logically selling/buying it would be, and that happens at almost any newsstand.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I'd be pretty sure that making porn is legal almost everywhere in the U.S. though perhaps not everywhere. Anyone know of a place where it is not?

[Bob S.]

"I thought downloading porn was illegal."

Kevin, this is talking about adult porn, not child porn which is illegal to both make and download. Porn that has pics of adults (over 18)--legal--is what the act is aiming for.

"Anyone know if this act directly defines pornography or whether there is an official U.S. government definition? eg. Do they define it as sexually-explicit material?"

Albinus, I believe that they are only aiming to target sexually explicit or perhaps erotic pics.
I could not see them applying the act to simple non-sexual nudes without a major First Amendment court case.

The other aspect of this that was noted on the news is the ability to collect from websites that are based in other countries.

The problem with many of these Internet laws is that the govt is applying geographic law to a virtual world. The two do not coexist well.

Bob S.

[gormenghast20]

Here is a webpage I found which discusses the legal basis for the banning (rightly so) of child pornography.... ban of child pornogra (http://www.adultweblaw.com/laws/childporn.htm)

[jon71]

For anyone over 18 porn is legal as church on Sunday and unfortunately much more common. It's only illegal if force or minors are involved. There may be regualtions in place such as zoning laws and such but the courts will never uphold outright bans.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
...
"Anyone know if this act directly defines pornography or whether there is an official U.S. government definition? eg. Do they define it as sexually-explicit material?"

Albinus, I believe that they are only aiming to target sexually explicit or perhaps erotic pics.
I could not see them applying the act to simple non-sexual nudes without a major First Amendment court case.
...
Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The big problem is that what constitutes "erotic" varies tremendously. "Sexually explicit" is easy to define if one says that it must show a penis in a vagina. But "sexual" or "erotic" are much vaguer terms.

[MikeJB]

Parents need to be the ones who monitor and control what their kids view online and not the government. Thats the job of the parent which many parents these days refuse to do because they figure why do they have to do it when the government will do it for them? The parents oughta be the ones to do it because its their responsibility and they know whats best for their kids and besides theres all sorts of internet software out there with neat features the parents can tweak so that they make sure their kids see only what the parents want them to. That should be sufficient without big Mommy government having to step in and stick its nose into issues thats none of its concern.

[DeathKnight]

According to too many peope, "pornography" is defined as simple nudity even if the genitals and breast (women only) are covered by something. The taboo fuels the porn industry.