6 ms·

Utah's online porn tax proposal poses a major threat to civil liberties

46 points by speckx 8mo ago

catlover76 8mo ago
[dead]
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
Georgelemental 8mo ago
> Producing, selling, and consuming pornography are matters of protected sexual speech so long nothing illegal and criminal occur. This is not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
- metalcrow 8mo ago
  This is a good point. A lot of people don't realize online pornography is arguably federally illegal, just totally unenforced.
- testing22321 8mo ago
  Freedom often isn’t.
- rayiner 8mo ago
  “Protected sexual speech” is such a bizarre phrase. Nobody who wrote the first amendment envisioned that. How can you say the First Amendment prohibits a democratically elected legislature from banning something that was never envisioned as being protected by the First Amendment by the people who wrote it? It makes no sense. Surely the views of either the writers of the first amendment of the past, or the democratically elected legislature in the present, must prevail.
  - sirspacey 8mo ago
    because that pretty much is the state of any kind of speach it could apply to. either we operate from it as a first principle/“sacred text” or its scope shrinks as modern life loses any literal comparison to life in the late 1700s
    - rayiner 8mo ago
      That doesn’t make any sense. To the extent that “modern life” diverges from the late 1700s, then you don’t need the First Amendment. Voters in 2026 can decide what kind of speech they want to ban or not.
      - staticman2 8mo ago
        What doesn't make any sense is proposing the constitution be interpreted as it was when there was no general right to vote or general right to political speech... then claiming this is the "voters decide" option.
        rayiner 8mo ago
        Your argument undermines the whole idea of written constitutions. It just means that we should ignore the First Amendment altogether. If there is a problem with what people thought in 1789, how can words written back then possibly bind elected legislatures in 2026 in any whatsoever?
        colinb 8mo ago
        Your argument ignores two things. First, the US constitution as it currently stands admits modifications. Amendments are version bumps. My understanding is that they’re harder to come by these days. Second, the constitution may be written but the interpretation is always changing. In particular, the interpretation of laws around restriction of free speech have lots of history of being interpreted in ways that may or may not be congruent with the intentions of the original authors, who’re dead, so we’ll never know the truth of it. It’s only been 107 years since the US Supreme Court decided that anti-draft speech in time of war COULD BE ILLEGAL. Apparently that was partially overturned in 1969. Thirdly [naming, caching and out by one bugs!] it is far from clear that a written constitution will lead to a durable republic. It’s only been ~250 years. Too soon to tell.
- cweagans 8mo ago
  From your link: > In practice, pornography showing genitalia and sexual acts is not ipso facto obscene according to the Miller test. I'm not sure you can make the statement that pornographic materials aren't protected speech. I don't think you can make the statement that they are though.
  - metalcrow 8mo ago
    In practice it is protected, but as the law is written it's hard to say how or why. Pure pornography with penetrative sex, by any reasonable definition, "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct" and "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". And it's pretty clear that most pornography is intended to "appeal to the prurient interest". So it's really only protected because juries refuse to convict, meaning it's only protected if the defendant is seen as likable.
    - SilverElfin 8mo ago
      Why Does “literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” matter. And who gets to judge that? I can arbitrary decide it does hold artistic value to me. If at least one person finds it is valuable why should it be banned? I understand you’re simply quoting the Miller Test but the entire concept of obscenity is ridiculous. Speech is speech. The Constitution says nothing about obscenity.
      - metalcrow 8mo ago
        It is ridiculous, i agree 100%. It's a holdover from the bad old days.
    - shakna 8mo ago
      "Patently offensive" carries some weight there. To those from Puritan backgrounds its probably offensive. To less prudish backgrounds, probably not.
tempaccountabgd 8mo ago
[dead]
gamblor956 8mo ago
According to PH, Utah is one of their biggest states, so this could raise a lot of tax revenue. Billions, based on the amount of this material that Utahans consume on an annual basis.
- PearlRiver 8mo ago
  So why not put normal sales tax on it like with everything else? I do not see the difference between taxing Netflix or Only Fans.
- throwaw3y 8mo ago
  > According to PH, Utah is one of their biggest states This is actually one of those "turns out!" facts people like to bring up that isn't actually rooted in any solid data. It was widely circulates based on a misinterpreted 2009 Harvard study, and Utah generally ranked in middle or lower middle of the pack when it came to site traffic per capita by state (in years prior to SB287, that is--obviously now traffic is next to none because of the IP ban).
  - gamblor956 8mo ago
    ??? Not sure what a Harvard study has to do with this. This is one of those "turns out" facts that is part of PH's annual PR release. Until 2023, PH and its competitors reported that red states led by Utah have been the largest consumers of adult material and wasn't even close. PH reported an extremely large rise in VPN usage after the Utah adult content bill passed, and assuming that those new VPN users are mostly Utahans, Utah still leads the nation in terms of adult material consumed.
- eudamoniac 8mo ago
  Pornhub is not operating in Utah at all. It blocks Utah users.
garfieldcomics 8mo ago
These laws are out of touch with the quality of local AI porn generators.
greatgib 8mo ago
Crazy how something legal and that should stay legal is easily restricted to use through big company own initiative to limit it and evil politicians bending innocuous laws and regulation bodies to block legal content that they don't like.
burnt-resistor 8mo ago
Technofascist MAGA, evangelical Christofascists, and illiberal limousine neoliberals all agree in outlawing rights, and removing freedoms and privacy from individuals. They've lost the plot on the point of a free country while they try to impose their moral conformity on everyone else.
phendrenad2 8mo ago
https://montypython.fandom.com/wiki/Tax_on_Thingy https://montypython.fandom.com/wiki/Tax_on_Thingy
SilverElfin 8mo ago
The SCOTUS ruling that allowed age verification for porn websites was a completely incorrect ruling. It amounts to restricting speech and should be reversed. Unfortunately it has emboldened the religious right - and make no mistake, a core part of the MAGA movement is a theocratic movement.

46 points by speckx 8mo ago

catlover76 8mo ago

[dead]

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

Georgelemental 8mo ago

> Producing, selling, and consuming pornography are matters of protected sexual speech so long nothing illegal and criminal occur. This is not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

metalcrow 8mo ago
This is a good point. A lot of people don't realize online pornography is arguably federally illegal, just totally unenforced.
testing22321 8mo ago
Freedom often isn’t.
rayiner 8mo ago
“Protected sexual speech” is such a bizarre phrase. Nobody who wrote the first amendment envisioned that. How can you say the First Amendment prohibits a democratically elected legislature from banning something that was never envisioned as being protected by the First Amendment by the people who wrote it? It makes no sense. Surely the views of either the writers of the first amendment of the past, or the democratically elected legislature in the present, must prevail.
- sirspacey 8mo ago
  because that pretty much is the state of any kind of speach it could apply to. either we operate from it as a first principle/“sacred text” or its scope shrinks as modern life loses any literal comparison to life in the late 1700s
  - rayiner 8mo ago
    That doesn’t make any sense. To the extent that “modern life” diverges from the late 1700s, then you don’t need the First Amendment. Voters in 2026 can decide what kind of speech they want to ban or not.
    - staticman2 8mo ago
      What doesn't make any sense is proposing the constitution be interpreted as it was when there was no general right to vote or general right to political speech... then claiming this is the "voters decide" option.
      - rayiner 8mo ago
        Your argument undermines the whole idea of written constitutions. It just means that we should ignore the First Amendment altogether. If there is a problem with what people thought in 1789, how can words written back then possibly bind elected legislatures in 2026 in any whatsoever?
        colinb 8mo ago
        Your argument ignores two things. First, the US constitution as it currently stands admits modifications. Amendments are version bumps. My understanding is that they’re harder to come by these days. Second, the constitution may be written but the interpretation is always changing. In particular, the interpretation of laws around restriction of free speech have lots of history of being interpreted in ways that may or may not be congruent with the intentions of the original authors, who’re dead, so we’ll never know the truth of it. It’s only been 107 years since the US Supreme Court decided that anti-draft speech in time of war COULD BE ILLEGAL. Apparently that was partially overturned in 1969. Thirdly [naming, caching and out by one bugs!] it is far from clear that a written constitution will lead to a durable republic. It’s only been ~250 years. Too soon to tell.
cweagans 8mo ago
From your link: > In practice, pornography showing genitalia and sexual acts is not ipso facto obscene according to the Miller test. I'm not sure you can make the statement that pornographic materials aren't protected speech. I don't think you can make the statement that they are though.
- metalcrow 8mo ago
  In practice it is protected, but as the law is written it's hard to say how or why. Pure pornography with penetrative sex, by any reasonable definition, "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct" and "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". And it's pretty clear that most pornography is intended to "appeal to the prurient interest". So it's really only protected because juries refuse to convict, meaning it's only protected if the defendant is seen as likable.
  - SilverElfin 8mo ago
    Why Does “literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” matter. And who gets to judge that? I can arbitrary decide it does hold artistic value to me. If at least one person finds it is valuable why should it be banned? I understand you’re simply quoting the Miller Test but the entire concept of obscenity is ridiculous. Speech is speech. The Constitution says nothing about obscenity.
    - metalcrow 8mo ago
      It is ridiculous, i agree 100%. It's a holdover from the bad old days.
  - shakna 8mo ago
    "Patently offensive" carries some weight there. To those from Puritan backgrounds its probably offensive. To less prudish backgrounds, probably not.

tempaccountabgd 8mo ago

[dead]

gamblor956 8mo ago

According to PH, Utah is one of their biggest states, so this could raise a lot of tax revenue. Billions, based on the amount of this material that Utahans consume on an annual basis.

PearlRiver 8mo ago
So why not put normal sales tax on it like with everything else? I do not see the difference between taxing Netflix or Only Fans.
throwaw3y 8mo ago
> According to PH, Utah is one of their biggest states This is actually one of those "turns out!" facts people like to bring up that isn't actually rooted in any solid data. It was widely circulates based on a misinterpreted 2009 Harvard study, and Utah generally ranked in middle or lower middle of the pack when it came to site traffic per capita by state (in years prior to SB287, that is--obviously now traffic is next to none because of the IP ban).
- gamblor956 8mo ago
  ??? Not sure what a Harvard study has to do with this. This is one of those "turns out" facts that is part of PH's annual PR release. Until 2023, PH and its competitors reported that red states led by Utah have been the largest consumers of adult material and wasn't even close. PH reported an extremely large rise in VPN usage after the Utah adult content bill passed, and assuming that those new VPN users are mostly Utahans, Utah still leads the nation in terms of adult material consumed.
eudamoniac 8mo ago
Pornhub is not operating in Utah at all. It blocks Utah users.

garfieldcomics 8mo ago

These laws are out of touch with the quality of local AI porn generators.

greatgib 8mo ago

Crazy how something legal and that should stay legal is easily restricted to use through big company own initiative to limit it and evil politicians bending innocuous laws and regulation bodies to block legal content that they don't like.

burnt-resistor 8mo ago

Technofascist MAGA, evangelical Christofascists, and illiberal limousine neoliberals all agree in outlawing rights, and removing freedoms and privacy from individuals. They've lost the plot on the point of a free country while they try to impose their moral conformity on everyone else.

phendrenad2 8mo ago

https://montypython.fandom.com/wiki/Tax_on_Thingy https://montypython.fandom.com/wiki/Tax_on_Thingy

SilverElfin 8mo ago

The SCOTUS ruling that allowed age verification for porn websites was a completely incorrect ruling. It amounts to restricting speech and should be reversed. Unfortunately it has emboldened the religious right - and make no mistake, a core part of the MAGA movement is a theocratic movement.