VP Joe Biden Believes There's 'No Legal Reason' The Government Can't Slap A Sin Tax On 'Violent Media'

from the brain-disengaged,-all-power-rerouted-to-mouth dept

I'm not sure where vice president Joe Biden is getting his information, but he seems rather confident that a tax can be levied against "violent media." He may want to check with the Supreme Court, which has ruled against regulating violent video games and found taxing certain varieties of speech differently to be a violation of the First Amendment.

Possibly Biden just got carried away with the jovial spirit of censorship pervading the post-Sandy Hook political climate. Or maybe he was just in an overly-agreeable mood and started making affirmative statements without considering what he was saying.

Or maybe he was just "playing to the crowd," which was entirely comprised of reps for various religious/community groups.

Those present for the Monday evening meeting included Franklin Graham, son of the evangelist Billy Graham and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and Barrett Duke, the vice president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy arm.

The meeting also included Bruce Reed, Biden’s chief of staff, and Melissa Rogers, the director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, according to people who attended.
This is not to say that all members (or even all representatives) of religious communities are censorious or prone to pushing their subjective morality on others. There are several exceptions. Franklin Graham, however, isn't one of the exceptions.
Graham, two people in the meeting said, told Biden the government should consider taxing media companies that broadcast violent images and produce violent video games.

He floated the idea that media and entertainment that portray violence should be subject to a special tax, with the proceeds going to help victims and their families," said Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, the executive vice president of the Rabbinical Assembly.
Let's stop here for a moment and take a look at this proposal, possibly in the way that might befit a nation's Vice President.

First off, the idea is bad and Graham should feel bad. As was mentioned above, applying additional tax to certain forms of speech is a clear violation of free speech rights. The government would be applying this tax to whatever it arbitrarily deemed "violent" enough to qualify for the "sin tax." (This is really what this amounts to -- a tax on certain speech and, indirectly, certain consumer behavior.)

Secondly, the direct flow of tax revenue from "violent media" to "victims and their families" makes an implicit connection between the two principals. This links the two in the government's eyes and in the public's eyes. This also handily allows the government to dodge the fact that there is very little, if any, explicit connection between "violent media" and violence. In essence, this presumes guilt on violent media creators and punishes them for exceeding some arbitrarily acceptable "violence" threshold.

Then there's perhaps the most troubling aspect: who decides what amount of violence is non-taxable and where does that line get crossed? If it's a PG-13 film, does it go untaxed? Does any M-rated game immediately have the tax applied? Will game developers and filmmakers explore other paths, like explicit sexuality, simply because violence gets taxed and sex doesn't? Or will they, more likely, adapt to the new chilling effect and produce stunted, sanitized output?

There are other questions to consider as well. With the consumers footing the bill for violent movies and games, will this price hike affect purchases by attaching some sort of stigma to the products themselves? Would the government label these items with something like: "2% of this purchase goes to victims of violence," thus making consumers feel complicit in violent criminal activity simply by purchasing the media?

[Bonus: will the MPAA be involved? It is one of Biden's buddies and its rating system is built on one of the most bizarrely abitrary set of 'standards' in the entertainment industry.]

These are just a few aspects that should be considered before anyone even brings the subject up, much less offers Vice Presidential-backing for the idea. But Biden seems almost charmingly naive in his response:
Biden told Graham that there was “no restriction on the ability to do that, there’s no legal reason why they couldn’t” tax violent images, Clark added.
I'm guessing at this point someone has gotten word to Biden that there's actually at least one legal reason the government can't tax "violent images," because there has been no further word from either proponent of this terrible idea.
Graham’s representatives did not respond to requests for comment. Biden’s office also did not respond to requests to comment about the meeting.
Maybe Biden felt this conversation would never leave the room and therefore felt comfortable making ridiculous claims. He certainly appears to have tried to chill a little free speech himself.
Five people who attended the 2½-hour meeting told POLITICO that Biden made a specific plea to those present to keep his words off the record from reporters.

“He basically just said in general that these stakeholder meetings that if you put words into the vice president’s mouth it sometimes comes out wrong and gets misquoted,” said Shantha Alonso, the director of the poverty program at the National Council of Churches.
Well, that's a nice out to have. I guess we'll see if the "I was misquoted/comment was off the record" excuse gets run up the flagpole sometime soon. If it doesn't, we might be safe in assuming that, no matter what conclusions the CDC reaches in its study of violence and violent media, Biden and like-minded supporters will be moving forward with their reinterpretations of the First Amendment.

(h/t to Techdirt reader Colin for sending this our way. Not sure which Colin it is as multiple Colins come up in the search, but he knows who he is and can certainly take credit for the tip in the comment section.)



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Mark Harrill (profile), May 15th, 2013 @ 12:28pm

    Can we get a hate tax too?

    And charge it to all the churches who propose items like banning gay marriage or pre-marital sex or any other hate filled idea. Then we can take the money and use it to create a fund for the victims and their families of such hate...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), May 15th, 2013 @ 12:43pm

    Maybe this is just a consequence of the health care ruling. They think they can tax us for anything now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2013 @ 2:12pm

    Anything to help your buddies out at the MPAA ey Joe?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), May 15th, 2013 @ 2:13pm

    Seriously, where does the US keep dredging these politicians up from? Is there some sort of farm where they are being bred? The number of truly spectacular brain farts from American politicians makes the UK look like Mensa, and that takes some doing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2013 @ 2:17pm

    Re: Can we get a hate tax too?

    I think we need to stop this hatred against hateful people!! Tax the hate against hate for hating hate

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    MRK, May 15th, 2013 @ 2:17pm

    Re:

    Precisely. The SCOTUS ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act established there is no limit to the government's power to coerce public behavior through taxation.

    NONE.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Michael, May 15th, 2013 @ 2:18pm

    Re: Taxation for Services

    I would not mind paying taxes much more like Europe if I got the benefits that they do.

    Things like;
    * real public healthcare that works
    * the digital equivalent of public roads infrastructure
    * various levels of job security/placement services for those seeking entry level positions (Sure I don't need that now, but would have seriously helped get my adult life started on the correct footing and would help new entrants to the job market.)

    Which the US generally lacks; then again our lack of defending civil/human rights is slowly turning us in to a third world country...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Michael, May 15th, 2013 @ 2:22pm

    Re:

    It comes from politics being a popularity (and mostly money/advertising driven) contest instead of a competency and civic duty one. In my observation (and opinion), to get anywhere high up in the system a politician has to be morally bankrupt and good at placating to the not cynical enough masses.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), May 15th, 2013 @ 2:23pm

    Re: Re: Taxation for Services

    I look at the US healthcare system and I am supremely thankful for the UK NHS. Sure, it has problems but it is fair and efficient and costs the taxpayer less than the US system.

    Of course, that does not stop the Tories from selling off huge chunks of it to American private healthcare companies while mainstream media completely ignore it while giving all the air time to UKIP and their bunch of xenophobic and racist europhobes.

    Sorry for the rant. My point was that I agree with your point that taxes are fine as long as the tax payer gets it back in quality services.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), May 15th, 2013 @ 2:25pm

    Re: Re:

    That is very true. I have known several decent, honest hard working politicians who truly want to serve the whole population and yet they can't get anywhere. It is incredibly frustrating.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    crade (profile), May 15th, 2013 @ 2:27pm

    I would think church and religious groups would be the hardest hit by such a tax, followed closely by historians.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Colin, May 15th, 2013 @ 2:28pm

    I'll take my credit only since Tim mentioned it. There's apparently a write up on Polygon (sourcing the same Politico article that I saw) as well. Obviously not as in-depth or focused as the Techdirt article but interesting if you want video game journalist/fans perspective on it (spoiler alert: it's not glowing):

    http://www.polygon.com/2013/5/14/4329352/biden-says-theres-no-legal-reason-why-the-gove rnment-cant-tax

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2013 @ 2:42pm

    Re: Can we get a hate tax too?

    Exactly ! They want to Tax me for loving Mass Effect and watching Science Fiction with Violence then I want those damn Churches that Preach Hate and Bigotry to feel an Equal Lash.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2013 @ 2:50pm

    Re: Can we get a hate tax too?

    How the hell is being against per-marital sex hateful? Seriously?!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), May 15th, 2013 @ 2:51pm

    Seems like a typical instance of a politician lying to a special interest to garner their favor. He knows it won't happen and he doesn't have the power to make it happen, so he can talk about it all day like something's going to change and everyone's happy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Blatant Coward (profile), May 15th, 2013 @ 3:11pm

    First thing to be taxed

    I think there is some merit in the idea myself.

    Genesis 22:10
    And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

    Genisis 4:8
    And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him

    Exodus 32:27
    And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

    Deuteronomy 19:12
    Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.

    Judges 9:54
    Then he called hastily unto the young man his armourbearer, and said unto him, Draw thy sword, and slay me, that men say not of me, A woman slew him. And his young man thrust him through, and he died.

    1Samuel 15:3
    Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

    Psalms 94:6
    They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless.

    1Kings 18:23
    And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.

    Isaiah 11:4
    But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.

    Jeremiah 15:3
    And I will appoint over them four kinds, saith the LORD: the sword to slay, and the dogs to tear, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the earth, to devour and destroy.

    Ezekiel 9:6, 7
    Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
    And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2013 @ 3:15pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Isn't that stop-block created because of the "no moderates"-rule getting strenghtened by the two-party system and the increasing divides in the political active population?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Jeremy2020 (profile), May 15th, 2013 @ 3:16pm

    Re: First thing to be taxed

    Budget problems solved on Bible tax alone!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), May 15th, 2013 @ 3:22pm

    Re:

    Depends on if it's per violation or just once per item. If the first, pull out a copy of the 'Good' Book and... well, that right there would get you enough tax revenue to last a good long while.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2013 @ 3:29pm

    I see no legal reason why the US government should escape taxation it pulls in as revenue either.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2013 @ 3:30pm

    Uncle joe has got to go...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    TheLastCzarnian (profile), May 15th, 2013 @ 3:36pm

    Re: Re: Can we get a hate tax too?

    I think we should tax people who hate technology. We could call it the "Apple tax".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2013 @ 3:50pm

    How about we tax Catholicism because it might promote child abuse?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    TheLoot (profile), May 15th, 2013 @ 4:00pm

    Re: Can we get a hate tax too?

    How about we just get rid of tax-exemption from churches? They all spout political views now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    LJW (profile), May 15th, 2013 @ 4:27pm

    As long at the Bible is considered violent media.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, May 15th, 2013 @ 4:57pm

    Can we slap a bullshit tax on political speeches?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2013 @ 5:20pm

    Re:

    Yeah otherwise its just singling out whichever things they simply don't like.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Bengie, May 15th, 2013 @ 5:36pm

    Re: Can we get a hate tax too?

    The Bible is a very violent book with lots of talking about oral sex. Would only be fair.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), May 15th, 2013 @ 6:53pm

    Re: Re: Can we get a hate tax too?

    Not ALL of them do.

    Just most of them.

    The ones that aren't mainstream don't preach political views too much. Some even encourage their members to not vote.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), May 15th, 2013 @ 6:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The problem is, when the primaries come up, well...

    Ron Paul was the most moderate of all of the R candidates last election...

    Bets that Democrats registered as R's and voted for Romney?

    And don't forget that many R's register as Dems to vote for the man/woman least likely to win against their candidate at times.

    You basically have a situation where both sides are sabotaging each other just to get a few points and screw the country over.

    Moderates can't win because of that situation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2013 @ 7:14pm

    It is bigger than violence...

    You touched on the problem with ratings systems in general. Who gets to decide what gets what rating period. By it's very nature ratings systems are unfair censorship simply for the fact that whoever gets to decide (unless it was the artist which would be funny in and of itself). The only thing that should be allowed to be required is a factual list of content that the potential viewer may be concerned about with absolutely no commentary injected as to the morality of the items in the list.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2013 @ 7:24pm

    Re: Re: Can we get a hate tax too?

    Good point. A tax exemption is effectively a negative tax on their particular speech which from a Constitutional perspective would count as an unfair advantage.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), May 15th, 2013 @ 9:12pm

    Re:

    Anything to help your buddies out at the MPAA ey Joe?


    Hmm. As easy as it is to blame the MPAA, I would bet that they would protest HEAVILY if this was pushed forward. The LAST thing the MPAA wants is a tax on violent movies. They would probably lead the fight against it...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2013 @ 11:03pm

    Sin tax?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2013 @ 11:03pm

    Sin tax?

    Thank god I'm an atheist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    Dannie blaze (profile), May 16th, 2013 @ 2:04am

    What about reviews of content deemed to be subject to the 'sin tax', Would film and games reviewers also be subject to it? What about adverts in magazines for violent games/films/etc? Or billboards? Trailers on youtube? Where exactly is the line drawn?

    Do any politicos truly think before they speak? Sometimes I get reminded of my brother-in-law who has ADHD - there seems to be no mechanism in between 'think stupid thing -> Say stupid thing'

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    ethorad (profile), May 16th, 2013 @ 4:38am

    Re:

    No, I'm Colin and so's my wife!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), May 16th, 2013 @ 5:32am

    Re: Re: Can we get a hate tax too?

    When you call people extremely public nasty names, when you restrict their health options based on your own personal moral 'claims', when you force babies to be born into enviornments where they have apparently negative support until they are old enough to be good little worker drones/cannon fodder/stand-your-ground fodder...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), May 16th, 2013 @ 5:34am

    Re:

    Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Georgia... take your pick ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Pragmatic, May 16th, 2013 @ 5:53am

    Re: Re:

    You do know the ACA is the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation?

    Well, hopefully, you do now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), May 16th, 2013 @ 6:36am

    Re: Re:

    I do believe that the MPAA filed a brief or two in the Brown vs EMA suit in support of the games industry. If not, they at least showed support of the final Supreme Court ruling.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Travis, May 16th, 2013 @ 7:57am

    Dark Ages

    Oh yes, let's let the religious dipshits dictate the direction of our society again. That worked so well back in the medieval ages.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    John85851 (profile), May 16th, 2013 @ 4:02pm

    What about the logistics?

    I don't know how much we should be complaining about this since it's obviously just a quick statement. I don't think anyone has even thought about the logistics:

    - What will be taxed? Like the article says, who will say what is violent? The "Saw" movies definitely are, but what about James Bond movies? And does the tax apply to old movies which were violent in their time, but are considered tame by today's standards? Will a Humphrey Bogart movie from the 1940's be taxed because he shoots a soldier?

    - Where will the tax money go? I have the feeling it won't go to the "victims"... and are there really victims of violent movies?

    - And if the money will go to victims of violent crime, how can people get on this list? Sure, this might be a response to the Sandy Hook shooting, but what about the cashier at 7-11 who was robbed at gun-point? That's a violent crime.

    But, as usual, a politician makes a grand statement without filling in any of the details.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    AzureSky (profile), May 16th, 2013 @ 9:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    honestly the only fix for this fascist bullshit is to get the dumbfucks to vote something other then R or D....but they are so fucking stupid they really think either of the 2 are out for the good of "We the people" rather hten the good of "We the corporations"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    moo, May 17th, 2013 @ 7:57am

    What a conservative would say. Left wingers look out for their Hollywood cronies. Is Joe crossing lines today?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Muunuu, May 23rd, 2013 @ 5:53am

    Violent Games

    Good. For once, game developers SHOULD explore sexuality. This American hinderness and fear on sex is just plain stupid. Over 30% of players are adults yet we are continuous treated like brain-dead little kids with spooked out parents. This is why the game industry NEVER grows in far as adult-life goes. I can never get a game that talks about anything that is adult, we always get these generic PG-13 crap games with gore and blood thrown in because the game developers and publishers are whimps. Yet I can find the material easily in a book or movie.

    I am tired of playing games with constant violence and blood in them, yet I can't strip my characters down without someone crying tears about it. One thing about the sex though I don't like how this nation constantly puts the female up as this big-breasted creature and that's the ONLY way a female body is suppose to look like.

    Lots of love for the D and F cups, lots of hate for the B and A cups.

    This is why I love South Korea and Japanese games the most. They give me what is lacking severely in western titled games. Seriously though we need to get over sexuality being this very voodoo thing. Face it, teen pregnancies or whatever are happening. Without the video-games.

    Video-games are NEVER the cause for any real-life trauma. So we need to stop blaming inanimated objects for the actions of whack-jobs in the real world, who's actions have existed before the creation of video-games by other kooky or evil people.

    Murders have always happened. A video-game does not cause or is the blame for murder. Same with rape. Rape has happened video-games do not cause rapes.

    If the game industry would stop being such whimps, we would see more meaningful plot-twists and truly adult-themed topics in games. But if the audience can't handle anything that isn't sanitized to the great beyond, then we'll continue to stay in the idiot bubble. And the 'games are only for kids' crowd that is plaguing the market.

    We're STILL stuck in the big huge Nintendo era of censorship.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    bw1, May 23rd, 2013 @ 6:28pm

    Ask Franklin and Schonfeld if the tax should apply to a movie about the Battle of Jericho, or the movies "Mosada" or "The Passion of the Christ." I think they would change their tune.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This