"Thirty-one percent of seventh- to 12th-graders pretend to be older so they
can access a pornographic website..."Okay and how many 7th to
12 graders from my day ever saw a pornographic magazine or movie? I'm betting
the numbers are pretty even, and we didn't even have the internet to help us out
If the congressman's motive is to stick it to the evil industry of porn with
regulation and taxation... what does that say of how the good congressman and
his party regard every other entity they regulate and tax? What
would that say of how they feel about oil, tobacco, alcohol, weapons, wheat, Big
Macs, money lenders, Ford, Chevy, electricians, plumbers, mechanics, dog
groomers, teachers,... and of course, you and me and our property.It
occurs to me that perhaps what gets taxed and regulated the most is a measure of
a politician's contempt for the violated entity.I pay nearly 40% in
taxes and I don't know how to measure the multitude of ways I'm regulated.Does the good politician hate me too? He's only going to tax porn at
25%? Does he hate me more than porn?
Ah yes, the evils of porn... WHAT OUT!?!? That porn is going to eat that
baby!!I didn't know it was election season already.
Reading the comments on this board, it is so refreshing to know that there are
so many responsible parents out there who filter the web for their families.
Unfortunately, there are parents out there who either do not filter the web, or
are incapable or uneducated enough to do so. We need to protect ALL children,
not just children with responsible and/ or educated parents. (Not all homes
have ideal role models.)I believe that Matheson is on the right track
here. He has taken the statesman approach allowing folks to have their rights,
but also remembering that we need to protect our most vulnerable citizens from
those who like to get young people "hooked".To many who
question the wisdom in getting the government involved, I would ask do we get
rid of government protection altogether? Should we allow minors to purchase
tobacco and alcohol? How about purchasing a firearm? Of course not! That line
of thinking is insane. However is allowing our children to view pornography at
the touch of a mouse, with no protection any different? Any parent who believes
they have this under control enough in their own home are kidding themselves.
Tom Smith | 5:36 a.m. Feb. 17, 2011 I don't believe that child
pornography is the subject at hand. Child pornography is almost universally
Why do they waste our time? I've said this several times...you can't regulate
the internet. It is a global entity. Making a law mandating age verification
will only take effect on US sites. You can get to any .ru .ch .uk, etc site just
as easily. While I am no fan of porn operators, you are just making the US ones
want to offshore meaning loss of tax revenues anyway. Same for an internet tax.
It is unenforceable and would only apply to US porn companies....making them
want to go offshore as well. Having them go offshore will not remove porn, it
just removes tax dollars.
@Goet: Amen on both comments.@Captain Kirk: A toast to you too.Dear Congressman,I appreciate your concern, but you've
chosen a job where your only means of accomplishing your objective is to tax me
and my neighbors to do it. No thanks!!! Come and give a talk at my club or
something.I find the tax on porn to be highly suspicious too. That
will effectively put me, as a somewhat-beneficiary of tax revenues, a porn
profiteer. I don't like that at all. Of course I oppose taxes all together,
but this one seems exceptionally dubious.Congressman, are you in
this for your "morality" or for the revenues?
Re: GoetAs a good parent my children aren't given the choice to view
pornography in my home. I do look to the government to put controls on
commercial web sites.Probably why we don't see adds for smoking on
No, I'm a good parent and I teach my children right and wrong and allow them to
make choices based on principles of freedom and morality.I don't
look to the government for my morality and for my parenting skillset.
Re: Goet | 9:33 a.m. Feb. 17, 2011 We aren't worried about saving
you Goet. The vast majority of decent citizens protecting our children from
pornography.Obviously you are the exception to the rule and follow
your children around every second of every day.
Thanks Jim. Good luck!
I find some of these comments ignorant. Shall we remove restrictions on driving,
tobacco, and alcohol as well, since Big Government put restrictions on those?
These are ridiculous arguments. Some industries should not be allowed to run
free reign - they do significant damage that we all pay a price for. Sensible
regulation is a positive move. And taxing them heavily is a wonderful idea.Also, I had thought at one time there was a movement to have all adult
industry websites have addresses at .xxx so they couldn't be accessed
accidentally from .com or .org addresses? Anyone know about that?
Thank you Mr. Big Government for saving me!!!I was unable to be a
parent until you, YES YOU, Mr. savior of my life, came into the picture.
I have an idea. Instead of implementing some huge federal system ... Maybe
parents should actually do some parenting. I filter my whole house
from porn for FREE using OpenDNS. There are many inexpensive and
easy to use products available for parents.I don't need the
government to do my job.
Matheson is trying to look conservative any way he can to prepare for 2012.
Unfortunately, the really obscene danger to our children is the huge debt being
piled on them by Matheson's fellow Democrats.How about protecting
them from that?
I believe that the liberals in his own party will block his efforts.Certainly, if they don't, civil libertarians will.This is an issue
that can likely only be resolved in the family.And while this is
under discussion - I wonder how the statistics look for children being exposed
to drug use? Could we say that 90 percent of kids ages 8 through 18 have been
exposed to illegal drug use? (Especially if you add "spice" to the
list of exposure agents?)These are home and family problems. The
government is notoriously unable to make a big difference. That doesn't mean
that righteous men and women shouldn't try, just that they should be honest and
realistic in their expectations for success.
It's worth a try.Thanks Rep. Matheson. This is a sensible approach that
can *help* protect children while not infringing on anyone's first amendment
The Office of the U.S. Attorney General has refused to address any issue related
to child pornography over the last 28 years. Is Matheson ready to take on the
Porn Industry? Big Player, lots of money-- Money buys political power. Any
Idol of this world can be purchased if you have enough money. How long will it
before Matheson gets an offer, or runs against a well financed opponent. My
guess is that Matheson won't last long in this arena.
I support Matheson 100%. Let's hope those working with him will see the wisdom
of this. It is long overdue.