Italy Joins the War on Porn
Bad news from the front lines in Italy:
Italian porn stars were up in arms yesterday over plans by Silvio Berlusconi’s government to introduce a tax on their work. The proceeds from the proposed new “porn tax” would go towards paying for working mothers to afford baby-sitters.
The measure - the brainchild of the formerly neo-fascist National Alliance - is due to be voted on in parliament next week. It is contained in the latest draft of Italy’s 2006 budget, which emerged from committee late on Wednesday.
The porn tax would take the form of a 20% levy on the selling price or rental cost of pornographic videos and DVDs. A similar surcharge would be placed on payments for pornographic material delivered by television stations or over the internet.
It’s a good cause to raise money for a babysitting fund, but why does the money have to come from taxing the porn industry? Is Italy trying to say that there is a link between single mothers and porn? Is it the fault of the porn industry that mothers are single?
Of course not. This approach is one that I’ve seen before from conservatives and religious fundamentalists trying to push forth their true agenda. When I attended a conservative convention earlier this year, I noticed during the voting process that there were many unrelated items grouped together. For example, “Tougher punishment for sex offenders and raising the ‘age of consent’ from 14 to 16 and renaming it to ‘age of protection’.” The latter part of the item is usually the more controversial part of the party’s agenda… the part they wish to push forward the most.
However, the way these things are presented is in a kind of “you must want A, so how can you be against B?” strategy. Kind of reminds me of someone holding a gun to my head…
The porn tax in Italy is no different; they are basically claiming that “it is right to want a babysitting allowance for single mothers, so how could you be against porn tax?” The truth is, the allowance is a good idea… but there are other ways to make it work. Have they exhausted all other avenues of thought like taxing item that are bad for your health?
If public opinion on pornography doesn’t change soon in the US, this scenario is inevitable.
December 9th, 2005 at 10:54 am
A babysitting allowance sounds like a nice idea to help out single mothers, but I have to agree; I don’t really see the connection between porn and single mothers. Perhaps they just recognise that porn is a very lucrative industry and figured that they would be able to get the most from taxing there.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
The justification is shaky, obviously a ploy to wrap the tax in some kind of social-justice fabric, but in the end, is taxing porn all that much different from taxing alcohol or tobacco? It sounds like a “vice tax” to me
. (Couldn’t resist).
December 9th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Leb- You’re absolutely right, it is a “vice tax”. The only problem is that it is not physically harmful to the human body so there is no logical justification outside of the agenda of eventual censorship/crushing of the porn industry. If this administration truly IS a fascist conservative party, then what do they care about unwed single mothers?
December 9th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
Not trying to argue… seems to me that a tax on video rentals, e.g. $0.01 per rental, over *all* rentals, would be quite a good kind of tax, sort of like a hotel room tax, or a rental car tax. Whotta way to raise revenue. And giving it to single unwed mothers… awwwww.
Taxing porn is singling out one mode of (video) entertainment, exactly as you put it - just a way of singling out and finding more ways to eliminate it or control it or marginalize it.
A waste of time. As long as we have camdorders, PCs, the internet, and bedrooms (optional
), there will be an infinite supply of porn.
December 10th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
you know what I have to say I’m sick of all my favorite things being taxed. honestly, I just want to do what I want without the government having its hands in my pocket. If I want to drink, there shouldn’t be a tax on booze. sure its bad for me, but so is cocaine, and theres no tax on that. (not that I’m into cocaine.) as for uncle sam, If I win money at the poker table in vegas, then get your hands out of my pockets. It’s illegal for players at the table to steal your chips, why you should you be able to steal my money after I take it from the table. especially if your gonna use it to appease religious zealots, who want to get rid of all the fun things in this world. (hehe there’s no fun in fundamentalism). In fact how about you look into the past to your precious first ammendment and notice that church and state are to be separate. or into the past and see what other people were appeased and got their way because no one wanted to challenge them (i.e. the nazis)
but then again, I’m lower middle class, white, canadian and an athiest… what do I know