The pornography industry generates nearly $100 billion annually, making it a tempting target for new revenue streams. While laws banning adult content were struck down over 50 years ago, recent proposals suggest imposing a “porn tax” to regulate access and generate funds. Could such measures reshape how we view sin taxes and online freedom?
What Is a “Porn Tax”?
The porn industry pays existing taxes on its profits. New proposals suggest a “porn tax” could raise more revenue. Legislators in at least 18 states are anxious to ensure they’re getting their “fair share” of the financial bonanza. Proponents liken it to excise taxes on cigarettes or alcohol—so-called sin taxes—that aim to raise revenue while reducing undesirable behavior.
Arizona’s Controversial Proposal
One recent effort is in my home state of Arizona. Republican state senator Gail Griffin has introduced HB 2444, the “Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Prevention Act.” The bill would require any manufacturer or supplier of any product that provides access to the internet to block residents of Arizona from accessing adult content. The filters would need to block all forms of porn and “any hub that facilitates prostitution.”
The only way that those living in our fair state could have uncensored internet access would be to prove they are at least 18 years old and pay a $20 unblocking fee to the state. Revenues from fees would go into a fund called the John McCain Human Trafficking Fund. It would prioritize grants for projects that “uphold community standards of decency.” The highest-priority grant would help fund construction costs for President Trump’s proposed wall along the US-Mexico border. This is a curious use of funds, given McCain’s criticism of the wall.
Could It Work as a Sin Tax?
Approximately 5.2 million of the residents of Arizona are over 18 and could legally watch porn under Griffin’s bill. If every one of them were to buy a “porn license,” the state would raise around $104 million. However, this amount would hardly make a dent in the border wall’s estimated $25 billion price tag.
If Griffin amended her proposal to require a $20 annual license fee, the state could create a significant ongoing revenue stream. But, such proposals are contentious. They force consumers to buy tech and risk over-censorship.
The Risks of Internet Censorship
Such proposals often require filters to block adult content. They also block tools like virtual private networks (VPNs), which are used to maintain online privacy and security. Consumers worried about online safety might have to pay the “porn tax” just to protect their digital identities.
More troublingly, regulating internet access with default filters sets a dangerous precedent. If our connections are censored by default for porn, what’s next? For a glimpse of such a future, look no further than China.
Lessons from China: A Slippery Slope
China’s government employs an estimated two million people as “internet public opinion analysts” to monitor and censor the web. Their job is to identify and remove objectionable posts, such as critiques of the government, while inserting millions of favorable comments about the Communist Party. China’s sophisticated filtering system bans most VPNs, further restricting digital freedom.
Is that the future we want for the United States? A “porn tax” may seem like an innovative revenue stream, but its implications for free speech and internet freedom are profound.
FAQ: Common Questions About a “Porn Tax”
What is a “porn tax”?
A “porn tax” is a proposed fee or license required to access adult content online, often justified as a sin tax to raise revenue or curb behavior.
Has any state enacted a “porn tax”?
As of April 2019, no US state has passed legislation requiring a license or fee to access adult content.
Should We Prioritize Digital Freedom?
A “porn tax” may seem like a new way to make money. But, it raises concerns about free speech and internet freedom. As we consider such measures, we must ask: Are we willing to sacrifice digital freedom and personal choice for short-term financial gains? Isn’t it time to prioritize solutions that uphold both economic efficiency and civil liberties?
