4 ms·
If this is legitimate, this could _easily_ be classified as a violation of the first amendment. Yes, kind of shocking that such ideas are even being suggested,
by nkcmr 8y ago
If this is legitimate, this could _easily_ be classified as a violation of the first amendment.
Yes, kind of shocking that such ideas are even being suggested, but I put low odds on this ever seeing a vote.
- onetimemanytime 8y agoedit: I'm commenting on the legal aspect of it, not saying CA should tax all WhatsUp messages. But they tax bread so... Nah, they tax TV stations and newspapers too. It's just a tax not targeted at free speech. 99.999% are "what he cheated on you again????" and "I just ate mcDonalds" type messages. They want to tax all messages and all services so it's likely to be kosher. I pay local tax on my phone bill....free speech my @ss, just a tax.
- inferiorhuman 8y agoCalifornia taxes hot food under the premise that it's been prepared at a restaurant (e.g. hot pastrami sandwich). Cold food is not (e.g. a head of lettuce) under the guise that it's less of a luxury. There is an exception for bakeries and even a hot loaf of bread is not taxed in California unless you were to eat it at the bakery.
- mc32 8y agoIt that what's behind the "Are you having it here or taking it to go?" even when you ask for a disposable cup for the coffee?
- inferiorhuman 8y agoYep. It's an attempt at a nuanced tax policy that doesn't translate well into sound bites.
- inferiorhuman 8y agoFirst amendment? That's a rookie move buddy. Ex post facto laws are explicitly prohibited by article 1 of the US constitution.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- wahern 8y agoHow would it be any different than taxing voice-line service? Because that's exactly what this is--an attempt to extend Universal Service voice-line surcharges to cover text messaging service.
- qwerty456127 8y agoTaxing the line service provider revenue is reasonable. Taxing the people for using it is not.
- wahern 8y agoIt may be unreasonable, but it's exactly how it works today. Look at your bill.
- qwerty456127 8y agoDo you really mean you pay both the telecom subscription + some kind of state/federal tax that depends on how much did you speak/download? I certainly don't and never did, this probably differs between countries.
- wahern 8y agoAFAIU I pay fixed surcharges per account but I fail to see how, say, a per-SMS tax would violate the First Amendment while taxing each individual sale of a newspaper does not. In the U.S. we also have a constitutional right to freedom of travel but that doesn't make a gasoline tax unconstitutional. Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits the government from regulating the content of speech, not the speech itself.
- rhacker 8y agoIt may also never have had a legal challenge. we may very well live to see a day where taxing communication is rendered... illegal. Things change. Remember 30 years ago where people could smoke inside a grocery store? How mind-warpingly fast things can change right?