FC: National Review lauds anti-porn activists, 1,000% tax on smut

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Mon Jan 07 2002 - 15:25:34 PST

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Veteran unicom.com owner sued by firm with new Unicom trademark"

    ---
    
    Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:32:17 -0500
    From: "Bruce Taylor" <BruceTaylorat_private>
    Subject: National Review article with kudos for us and our allies.
    
    Below is an excerpt from the full National Review online column by Jay 
    Nordlinger, NR's Managing Editor.  The link to the full column 
    is:  http://www.nationalreview.com/impromptus/impromptus010702.shtml
    
    ( I think Jan LaRue of FRC made us look good, among the warriors for 
    decency through law.  Thanks, Jan! )
    
    Helen Thomas, leftist style, heroes of anti-porn, &c.
    
    January 7, 2002 8:50 a.m.
    
    NRonline.com
    
    In the previous Impromptus, I mentioned pornographic e-mail spam, and how I 
    hated it. I said that this spam had a particular predilection for 
    pedophilia, incest, and bestiality. I also praised the anti-porn activists, 
    who come in for so much abuse: They're called prudes and killjoys; 
    anti-Constitutionalists and enemies of the Bill of Rights. I also pointed 
    out that their work is often lonely, because the subject is so disgusting — 
    especially where young children are concerned — that most people would 
    rather turn away, would rather not know about it, much less try to do 
    anything about it. (Incidentally, I explored this subject at length in a 
    piece titled "Getting Aroused" in the Nov. 19 National Review).
    The item provoked a torrent of e-mail, much of which said, "I would like to 
    help — who are the people laboring in this vineyard?" There are many, I'm 
    happy to say, and they're truly doing the Lord's work, and not just the 
    Lord's, but ours: In a significant way, they're doing it in our stead. It's 
    the kind of work most of us would like to see done, but we lack either the 
    time or the will to do it.
    Let me mention a few workers in the field: There's Pat Trueman of the 
    American Family Association. There's Jan LaRue at the Family Research 
    Council, and Miriam Moore of that same organization. There's Bruce Taylor, 
    president of the National Law Center for Children and Families. There are 
    Phil and Vickie Burress at Citizens for Community Values. There's Jay 
    Sekulow at the American Center for Law and Justice. There's a marvelous 
    California group called Enough is Enough (in which Donna Rice — of Gary 
    Hart scandal fame — has participated). There is Morality in Media. And so on.
    I'm sure I'm forgetting important ones, to my shame. But at least I've 
    presented a few for the honor roll.
    Let me repeat one thing I've learned in studying this issue (particularly 
    in preparation for that magazine piece I mentioned): It is one of the 
    pornographers' best allies, most potent weapons, that so many people think 
    that nothing can be done about the worst of the porn, that American law and 
    American values tie our hands — that we just have to abide it, else we hate 
    Thomas Jefferson.
    It's not true, y'all. Not true at all. Get aroused, if you dare.
    Note this interesting letter from a reader:
    "A couple of years ago, I wrote a book on networking. In the chapter on 
    domain-name service, I wanted to give an example of an Internet domain name 
    that was objectionable but not yet used. It was very hard to find one: 
    boyrape.com, kidsex.com (registered to one Lee Myun Jong), boysex.com 
    (registered to a company in Switzerland), and so on are all real domains 
    that are open for business. When we're finished with the terrorists, I hope 
    we have a few daisy cutters left for these bastards."
    And how about the following?
    "Remember 'sin' taxes on alcohol and tobacco? Why not apply them to 
    pornography? Say at the rate of 100-1,000 % of gross billing. Subject 
    financial intermediaries to, oh, a 20 % tax on their top line even if only 
    one single dollar was derived from that industry. And of course, dedicate 
    100 % of the tax revenue to fund health care for the children. As a side 
    benefit, after a little tinkering, this tax could be true payback to the 
    Hollywood crowd."
    That's using the old noggin.
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 15:37:31 PST