PORN!!!

Content based Taxation

In an attempt to raise revenue and reconcile the budget against a massive shortfall the Alabama House Ways and Means Committee has passed (10-4) that in addition to any other applicable taxes, a 40% state excise tax will be levied on gross receipts from the sale, rental or admission charges of pornographic material. The bill heads to the Alabama House floor for a vote.

This presents an interesting constitutional question in regards to the first amendment... Can you tax the content of First Amendment protected material?

Now Arkansas tried this once already, although not on porn, imposing a tax on general interest magazines but exempting newspapers, as well as religious, professional, trade, and sports journals.  The Supreme Court held in Arkansas Writers Journal v. Ragland that the tax "burdens rights protected by the First Amendment by discriminating against a small group of magazines, including appellant's, which are the only magazines that pay the tax" the court also said that " its use here is even more disturbing because the Arkansas statute requires official scrutiny of publications' content as the basis for imposing a tax. This is incompatible with the First Amendment, whose requirements are not avoided merely because the statute does not burden the expression of particular views expressed by specific magazines, and exempts other members of the media that might publish discussions of the various subjects contained in appellant's magazine."  -Caselaw-

While I oppose social engineering through the use of taxation as it is not the government's job to tell us how to act, think, eat, drink, or what to do or not do behaviorally... at least taxation on cigarettes and alcohol can be partially justified on the cost imposed on society by their abuse (I don't support that position but I can understand it).  Alabama will be hard pressed to specifically attribute a cost to the use, viewing, or experience of pornography.

I think there are two things going on here, one is greed in the face of severe budget shortfalls, the other is the imposition of a religious moral restriction on pornography that is not reflected in the law of the land on material that is substantially protected under the First amendment. 

What do you think?

burdens rights protected by the First Amendment by discriminating against a small group of magazines, including appellant's, which are the only magazines that pay the tax. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/481/221.html#228

burdens rights protected by the First Amendment by discriminating against a small group of magazines, including appellant's, which are the only magazines that pay the tax. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/481/221.html#228

burdens rights protected by the First Amendment by discriminating against a small group of magazines, including appellant's, which are the only magazines that pay the tax. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/481/221.html#228"