Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Just Asking Questions
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Print Subscription
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Florida

Florida Governor Candidate Proposes 50 Percent Tax on OnlyFans Creator Revenue

"I will not allow a generation of smart and capable young women to sell their bodies online," said Republican gubernatorial hopeful James Fishback.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 1.14.2026 12:52 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Sophie Rain and James Fishback | Illustration: Douglas R. Clifford/ZUMA Press | Newscom | @SophiaRaiin |Instagram
(Illustration: Douglas R. Clifford/ZUMA Press | Newscom | @SophiaRaiin |Instagram)

Politicians proposing extra taxes on pornography purchases or proceeds is nothing new. But Florida gubernatorial candidate James Fishback's porn tax proposal stands out for the extraordinary paternalism that comes along with it.

"As Florida Governor, I will not allow a generation of smart and capable young women to sell their bodies online," Fishback posted to X on Monday. 

You are reading Sex & Tech, from Elizabeth Nolan Brown. Get more of Elizabeth's sex, tech, bodily autonomy, law, and online culture coverage.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

It's standard these days for anti-porn warriors to wring their hands about how porn viewership is corrupting young men and driving up loneliness, or to proclaim to be protecting children, or to claim that all porn performers are victims of human trafficking. So it's almost refreshing to someone crusading against porn on "no hussies allowed" grounds.

At least Fishback, intentionally or not, suggests that online porn creators can be "smart and capable" women who are acting out of their own agency.

He just wants to take that agency away.

Specifically, Fishback is calling for a 50 percent tax on whatever people make via OnlyFans—a platform that has become notorious for connecting sexually explicit content creators with those willing to pay directly for said content, but in fact, creators of all sorts can sell content directly to fans through the platform.

"As Florida governor in year one, I will push for the first of its kind Only Fans Sin Tax," Fishback said in a recent video. "If you are a so-called OnlyFans creator in Florida, you are going to pay 50 percent to the state on whatever you so-called earn on that online degeneracy platform." 

Fishback said the funds collected from his OnlyFans sin tax would be used to fund education, crisis pregnancy centers, and a "mental health czar for men in particular."  

He went on to complain that "toxic masculinity" gets blamed for too many of society's ills when, presumably, everything is the whores' faults. How adorably retro!

"As Florida governor," he continued, "I don't want young women—who could otherwise be mothers raising families, rearing children—I don't want them to be selling their bodies to sick men online."

Well, now I'm confused—are men to blame here or not?

On one level, I don't think we need to take any of this too seriously. Taxing profits from one's legal speech on one platform and not similarly situated platforms is clearly unconstitutional. Florida doesn't even have an income tax, which would at least complicate plans to tax OnlyFans income. And Fishback is a long-shot candidate with some serious baggage.

"A Florida school district 'cut ties' with Fishback, who ran an organization called Incubate Debate, after he 'initiated a romantic relationship' with a 17-year-old student and faced allegations that he harassed her after they broke up, a charge that Fishback has denied," The Spectator reports.

"The odds that Fishback will win the primary are not quite zero, as he's running against Congressman Byron Donalds, who's dogged by insider-trading and proxy-voting scandals," points out the Spectator columnist who goes simply by Cockburn. "Yet Fishback seems to be doing everything he can to lose, generate outrage, or both, calling Donalds, who is black, 'By'rone' on X – as in 'By'rone wants to turn Florida into a Section 8 ghetto.'"

So, schlock candidate makes schlock proposal, we all gawk, and that's that, right?

Except I don't think we should be totally dismissive of Fishback's rhetoric, either. After all, there are countless boogey-people he could rail against: critical race theorists; transgender Floridians; proponents of diversity, equity, and inclusion; single cat ladies; Planned Parenthood supporters, and so on. Culture warriors, especially in states like Florida, have no shortage of trumped-up villains available to them when they want to make their base salivate.

Fishback's OnlyFans sin tax may never become a reality. But the fact that he's singled out young women who sell sexual content on OnlyFans as a special target of ire—and that he's framing them as the perpetrators of depravity, rather than victims of it—is indicative of a larger shift in the way some segments of the right (and perhaps beyond) have started to talk about sex work and pornography.

After a few decades of people framing sex work as synonymous with sex trafficking, and all sex workers as hapless "survivors," we're beginning to once again see more focus shift to sex workers as vectors of deviance rather than victimhood.

I think one could make a case that this is preferable, from a political standpoint. It is easy to get Democrats and progressives and even people who are broadly libertarian on board with anti-sex and anti-speech regulations or enforcement efforts aimed at saving victims and stopping "sex trafficking." It's easy to get all sorts of normies on board with protecting children from seeing pornography or being solicited for sex. It's much harder to get a broad coalition motivated by the idea that sex workers are sinners and sluts who deserve to be singled out for special punishments until they choose to become trad wives instead.

But from a cultural standpoint, it's not great. It hints at the mainstreaming of a certain sort of sexism, one in which women's lifestyle choices should be public property. It's tied up in the right's increasing comfort with blaming women for falling birth rates and shaming women for failing to live up to vintage ideals of femininity and motherhood.

Fishback may be a fringe candidate, and his 50 percent OnlyFans tax a fringe idea, but the impulses underlying his proposal seem to be getting increasingly less fringe these days.


More Sex & Tech News

DEFIANCE Act passes Senate: The bill would let people sue over the nonconsensual creation of fake, sexually explicit images of themselves.

Can chatbots keep a secret? "The founder of Signal has been quietly working on a fully end-to-end encrypted, open-source AI chatbot designed to keep users' conversations secret," reports Gizmodo.

Over half a million Australians booted from Meta platforms. The Facebook and Instagram parent company said it had to block 550,000 accounts in advance of Australia's ban on those under age 16 having social media accounts, which took effect December 11.

Some AI optimism, for a change: Emily Chamlee-Wright, president of the Institute for Humane Studies, makes the case that artificial intelligence will create new work, and not just for the most highly skilled or technical workers. "The danger is not that AI will make humans irrelevant. The danger is that we might build a political and economic order that expects us to be," Chamlee-Wright writes.

Unconstitutional Arkansas social media law, take two: After a federal judge permanently declared Arkansas' law requiring social media platforms to check user ages unconstitutional and permanently blocked it, the state is trying again. But the reworked law—Arkansas Act 900, passed in 2025—is merely a "'cosmetic' update" that "does not remedy the law's continued constitutional defects," said Paul Taske, co-director of litigation for the tech industry trade group NetChoice. The group is now suing over the revised law, which, among other things, requires platforms to offer dashboards that allow parents "to view and understand [their] child's use habits." It also requires platforms to enact special restrictions on accounts held by people under age, including blocking anything that could "evoke any addiction or compulsive behaviors."

The financial cost of repealing Section 230: A new report from the Computer and Communications Industry Association suggests that repealing this important internet law would "cost investors at least $2.2 trillion," lead to an estimated 1.1 million lawsuits per year against tech companies, and "cost digital services and their users more than $100k in legal fees per case totaling about $110 billion per year."

The intersection of immigration and sex work: New York Mayor Zohran "Mamdani cannot meaningfully protect migrants while enforcing the criminalization of [sex] work that some rely on to survive," writes Kali Coleman.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: The Postal Service's 'Next Generation' Electric Delivery Vehicles Cost $22,000 More Than Other Electric Vans

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

FloridaPornographyPaternalismTaxesSex WorkIncome taxInternetFeminismMoral PanicSexFree SpeechFree Markets
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (37)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Rick James   3 hours ago

    The financial cost of repealing Section 230: A new report from the Computer and Communications Industry Association suggests that repealing this important internet law would "cost investors at least $2.2 trillion," lead to an estimated 1.1 million lawsuits per year against tech companies, and "cost digital services and their users more than $100k in legal fees per case totaling about $110 billion per year."

    This is complete bullshit because section 230 only applies in the united states.

    In what so-called libertarian loony land does blanket immunity from civil liability make any goddamned sense?

    Are car companies immune from civil suits? Even gun companies weren't immune from lawsuits until 2005 when they immunized them against the criminal activity of their users.

    Again, I have repeatedly supported immunity from the criminal acts of their users, but the idea that they can just run roughshod over their users, violate their own terms of service, lie, cheat and steal their way through their user base in regards to moderation and they're just completely immune from being sued is retarded.

    Log in to Reply
    1. Rossami   3 hours ago

      It's a good thing Sec 230 doesn't offer blanket immunity from civil liability, then. Sec 230 just applies the same liability to platforms that car companies have for their cars - that is, they're liable for the things they do and not for the things their customers do with their product/service.

      Violations of their own terms of service are a problem but that's for civil suits by the affected customers to solve, not something that needs yet another law. Note also that repealing Sec 230 wouldn't do diddley to solve that problem.

      Log in to Reply
      1. Rick James   2 hours ago

        It's a good thing Sec 230 doesn't offer blanket immunity from civil liability, then. Sec 230 just applies the same liability to platforms that car companies have for their cars - that is, they're liable for the things they do and not for the things their customers do with their product/service

        And you are wrong, you have misread section 230.

        Let's break it down, line by line:

        (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
        (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
        No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

        This it he part I have no problem with. It makes it so any potentially criminal speech by the users places no liability on the platform. They are not to be considered the speaker. Simple, easy to understand.

        (2)Civil liability
        No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
        (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

        This is a relic of this being the communications decency act, something Reason used to rail against. This 'good faith moderation' was blanket protections for censoring constitutionally protected speech. The government wanted the platforms to censor on its behalf, any speech that was basically lewd, obscene or "OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE". Otherwise objectionable could be claiming that COVID wasn't that serious for people under 80, for instance.

        (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

        This last piece is more technical, but it appears to protect them from civil liability for sharing information to other content providers to HELP THEM censor or deal with the CRIMINAL speech of their users.

        You have fallen into the trap of believing that the entirety of section 230 is about criminal liability. It's main thrust is civil liability for broad censorship of perfectly legal speech, because the entire thing was written to aid companies into censoring on the government's behalf.

        Log in to Reply
      2. Rick James   2 hours ago

        Violations of their own terms of service are a problem but that's for civil suits by the affected customers to solve, not something that needs yet another law. Note also that repealing Sec 230 wouldn't do diddley to solve that problem.

        Wrong. If they censor you for speech that DOES NOT violate their own terms of service, and they censor you anyway, they are immune from any civil action. They are in fact free to violate their own terms of service if that violation comes in the form of moderation of anything they deem to be 'objectionable'.

        This article is complete bullshit. It seems to extrapolate that every moderation decision will result in every spotty-faced basement dweller to lawyer up and sue the company. That is complete bullshit. The only lawsuits they're likely to face is when they censor someone who the platform either monetizes or that user relies heavily upon for their income. The courts are perfectly capable of allowing or not allowing lawsuits to go forward based on merit.

        If a user makes $4 million a year on Tik Tok through brand deals or other forms of monetization, like you, I have faith that the courts can figure out if a sudden ban violated the platforms terms of service and whether or not the user has a case.

        Log in to Reply
      3. Rick James   2 hours ago

        Another test of why section 230 doesn't do what so many Mike Masnick-types think it does is to ask yourself, "Why does Youtube (or any like-platform) care one whit about copyright violations. Why are they striking anything for copyright?

        They are 1: not considered the speaker for criminal violations and 2: They are not liable for any moderation decision made in good faith. Any copyright violation should be between the user and the company claiming copyright. Meaning if I put a video up and include copyrighted music over it, that's between BMI, Columbia Records or Sony Music to deal with me directly.

        The idea that section 230 is the "First Amendment of the Internet" stretches credulity beyond recognition.

        Log in to Reply
        1. damikesc   2 hours ago

          That is an excellent point.

          Log in to Reply
      4. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 hours ago

        Let me ask you a question then.

        Is moderation an act a company does? Because they are also immune to that.

        Can a car company stop use of a car someone bought or change the pricing structure of the car payments on a whim? Because they are immune to that.

        Log in to Reply
        1. Rick James   1 hour ago

          I don't want to stretch analogies too far, but it's like if you bought a Tesla and the company banned your car's VIN # from charging at SuperCharging stations after you bought it... and you tried to sue but found that Tesla had a section 230 making them immune.

          Again, there's always this attempt to blur the lines between "blanket immunity" and a court determining that the lawsuit has no basis. It's entirely possible that due to the nuances of long-standing case law that courts might be reluctant to allow such lawsuits to go forward. Reasonable people can agree or disagree on the court's decision. That would fall squarely under Rossami's contention that the courts are able to work these disputes out. But that's what the courts do. If we passed a law giving Tesla blanket immunity for such 'moderation' activity, that would be a travesty.

          I would be perfectly happy if courts were reluctant to allow moderation suits to go forward due to the interpretation of civil liability law and strictures, but to just slap blanket immunity on them for anything, anywhere, any time, under any circumstances in regards to moderation is fucking retarded.

          Log in to Reply
    2. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 hours ago

      230 is treated more as an immunity against contract enforcement than anything else, so I agree with you.

      No other industry on the planet can change their contractual terms on a whim.

      Log in to Reply
      1. Rick James   2 hours ago

        Well they can, but they'd be subject to civil suits. *crosses arms and leans back*

        Log in to Reply
      2. Rick James   1 hour ago

        Oh, and by the way, as we now know, even the criminal liability part isn't ironclad as the BackPage case demonstrates.

        Log in to Reply
  2. Spiritus Mundi   3 hours ago

    Non sequitur, but I can't wait for Sullum's mental gymnastics. Will probably look like, no it doesn't matter he had internal bleeding, rules were not followed.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ice-officer-who-shot-renee-good-internal-injuries-sources-say/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=898655483

    Log in to Reply
    1. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 hours ago

      Liberals are already screaming this is a fake report.

      Log in to Reply
  3. DesigNate   3 hours ago

    Any Republican that calls for increased income taxes is a fucking RINO.

    Log in to Reply
    1. Longtobefree   2 hours ago

      It's a sales tax, not an income tax.
      Florida does not have an income tax.

      Log in to Reply
      1. DesigNate   2 hours ago

        Not that that is much better, but I probably should have read the article.

        Log in to Reply
  4. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   3 hours ago

    Don’t vote for anyone who says the phrase “I will not allow…”.

    Log in to Reply
  5. Zeb   2 hours ago

    I will not allow a generation of smart and capable young women to sell their bodies online

    So only the dumb bitches get to be professional harlots?

    Log in to Reply
    1. Longtobefree   2 hours ago

      You bet.
      I mean, getting paid as much as you can is really, really, stupid, right?

      Log in to Reply
    2. Rick James   2 hours ago

      If they make $40,000 a month selling feet pics, who's the dumb bitch?

      Log in to Reply
      1. Zeb   2 hours ago

        The customers paying for feet pics? Value is subjective, I suppose.

        Log in to Reply
        1. Rick James   2 hours ago

          Exactly. Trust me, if I could make $40k a month selling feet pics, I'd do it tomorrow, but unlike the ACLU, I know what the definition of sex is, so I know that's not a pathway for me.

          Log in to Reply
          1. Zeb   1 hour ago

            Can't say I'd turn down that opportunity either. Which is probably one of several reasons there is no market for middle aged dude foot pics.

            Log in to Reply
            1. Eeyore   32 minutes ago

              Price will reach an equilibrium between supply and demand. Not saying there is 0 demand. The solution would be to get the government to subsidize it. Worked for corn.

              Log in to Reply
        2. Gaear Grimsrud   56 minutes ago

          My boyhood dream was to be a hand model like that X Files dude in Zoolander. Tough market in the days before Onlyfans.

          Log in to Reply
    3. Minadin   1 hour ago

      I mean, the sentiment behind the statement is noble, but the tactics are not. 'I wouldn't recommend' or 'I don't approve' is miles away from 'I will not allow'. And in any case, he's stopping well short of disallowing it. His plan is apparently to discourage it by taxing the hell out of it.

      Log in to Reply
      1. Zeb   1 hour ago

        I'm really just joking about the very political way he stated it. As if all of the women doing onlyfans could otherwise be making similar money doing more respectable work.
        And people have the right to make money on whatever aspect of themselves they want to, though I do agree porn probably isn't ultimately a great life choice for most of these women.

        Log in to Reply
      2. Gaear Grimsrud   53 minutes ago

        Kinda like the billionaire tax in CA. Won't these ladies just move to Georgia?

        Log in to Reply
  6. Liberty_Belle   2 hours ago

    Who give a flying expletive what he thinks he can and cannot "allow". No grown woman needs his permission to do anything.

    Log in to Reply
    1. Longtobefree   2 hours ago

      Right.
      Only democrats get to tell grown women what to do.

      Log in to Reply
    2. Rick James   1 hour ago

      *looks at current state of politics, New York, the Democratic Party (where Libertarians belong)*

      No one is suggesting the women aren't allowed to sell their bodies online, they're just going to start paying their fair share.

      Log in to Reply
  7. MasterThief   2 hours ago

    That's a hell of a sin tax!
    On one side, fuck them hoes. Pressuring them away from that is better for society.
    On the other side, people are free to be whores and there are certainly enough guys creating a lucrative market for it.
    I agree with the aims of this proposal and am not remotely sympathetic to "sex workers" but I do vehemently oppose this sin tax.

    Log in to Reply
  8. scape   1 hour ago

    "I will not allow a generation of smart and capable young women to sell their bodies online"

    Unless they give me half. Pimpin be eazy, yo!

    Log in to Reply
    1. Gaear Grimsrud   50 minutes ago

      "Is Wayne Brady gonna have to slap a bitch?"

      Log in to Reply
  9. yet another dave   47 minutes ago

    50% tax on their earnings sounds less like he wants to stop them from debasing themselves and more like he want Florida to be their pimp. Govner "get out there and earn, bitch" needs some fun money.

    Log in to Reply
    1. Eeyore   36 minutes ago

      A Pimps Love is Very Different From That of A Square.

      Log in to Reply
  10. Its_Not_Inevitable   20 minutes ago

    If any article calls for a Pic of the Day this is it.

    Log in to Reply

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Brett Kavanaugh Is Rightly Skeptical of a Nationwide Ruling on Trans Athletes

Jason Russell | 1.14.2026 4:00 PM

The FBI Thinks Renee Good's Anti-ICE Activism Is Relevant in Deciding Whether Killing Her Was Justified

Jacob Sullum | 1.14.2026 3:45 PM

Florida Governor Candidate Proposes 50 Percent Tax on OnlyFans Creator Revenue

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 1.14.2026 12:52 PM

The Postal Service's 'Next Generation' Electric Delivery Vehicles Cost $22,000 More Than Other Electric Vans

Jack Nicastro | 1.14.2026 11:15 AM

Rand Paul to Joe Rogan: DOJ Won't Prosecute Anthony Fauci for Lying

Robby Soave | 1.14.2026 10:35 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2026 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

I WANT FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS!

Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.

Make a donation today! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks