|
John,
Thoughtful posts. Here are some questions and thoughts it raises in me:
> Although many have accused me of being a "First Amendment absolutist" (as
> if this would be a bad thing), I see no objection inherent Constitutional
> objections to taxing some advertising in some media (or, conversely--or
> perhaps along with--removing the deductibility of advertising).
Without having analyzed the issue much, I am in favor of removing the deductability of
advertising. I'm in favor of removing the deductibility of everything, because at root
it's usually governmental social engineering via the tax system.
> There are plenty of absolute bans on speech that are upheld. For a simple
> example, there is no First Amendment right to spray graffiti on buildings
> or trains, because the ban is absolute--no one gets to do it, regardless of
> the content of their views.
Yes, but this is for reasons of property, not speech. You have no right to
deface/destroy property that is not yours. You can spray any graffiti you want (within
obscenity restrictions) on property you do own. Calling this a restriction on free
speech is somewhat misleading, it seems to me.
> But a tax on advertising conducted in the broadcast media--radio and
> television--and the internet (developed entirely by government money and
> conducted over interstate and national lines) is almost certainly
> unobjectionable (note that I am not a lawyer but a well-read layman)
> because, according to Congress, the airwaves belong to the public. If we
> choose to charge users' a fee -- a tax -- for access to our airwaves/phone
> lines, then that's fine so long as the tax isn't applied to some and not
> applied to others based on content.
As a slight aside, the Internet is not a national network conducted on "interstate
and national lines," but an international one. If someone in Russia puts an
advertisement on the Web, what right do we have to stop them?
Also, these interstate and national lines are, I believe, owned and operated these
days mostly by the likes of private concerns like MCI, UUNet, etc.
Moreover, bandwidth on the Internet is not inherently limited as it is in the
electromagnetic spectrum.
And while the Internet sprang from research financed and conducted by the US
government.... who says that means we can/should tax advertising on it? What I mean
is, the government is just the people, and what about those people who think the think
advertising on the Internet is a perfectly legitimate, economically-enhancing, even
intellectually-enhancing thing to do. This brings us back, as it always does, to the
question of "who decides" what speech is to be restricted.
> But wait, you say, letting churches broadcast tax-free but not toothpaste
> makers is certainly based on a difference in content, right? Not
> really--we need only say that the tax is incurred when the
> license-holder--the person or corporation who we have lent right to control
> that portion of the electromagnetic spectrum--sublets the airwaves for
> money.
But "lending" them the right to control that portion of the electromagnetic spectrum
is the same as "subletting" it to them, isn't it? Personally speaking, I'd no rather
"lend" the spectrum to churches than to toothpaste makers, whether they choose to
sublet it or not. Again, who decides -- especially in a limited medium.
> I would also assess something like a 0.25% tax on mass media (radio, tv,
> and internet) advertising and use the proceeds to pay for 100% public
> financing of elections. This is the only solution that I see to the
> bought-and-sold politicians, which is the root issue in any problem you
> care to name (poverty, imperialism, environmental crisis, lack of health
> care, etc.).
Not a bad idea... but why should mass media taxes alone pay for publically-financed
campaigns? If publically-financed campaigns are something we want, I think everyone
ought to contribute to them more or less equally.
I still maintain that the Internet -- and, in fact, mass media in general -- forces us
to examine what we mean by free speech. And to back that up. This is required of us in
a far deeper way than it was of the founding fathers, who after all lived in a much,
much different time.
Truly free speech is a very threatening thing, but I think of those two words "free"
is the one that's much more important than "speech."
David
appell@nh.ultranet.com
http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~appell/home.shtml