WWW- I’m no free-market libertarian. You’ll never hear me argue against a healthy dose of regulation if it helps consumers without stopping businesses from turning a profit.

A group of Democratic senators last week introduced a bill that would slap a 25 percent tax on Internet pornography sites to pay for a trust fund to “protect” children online. I’m sure they think this is a great idea, but as for me, I’m hoping it will end up at the back of the Senate parliamentarian’s filing cabinet under the spare coffee filters.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported on the proposal: “‘Our children can literally stumble into adult Web sites that are inappropriate for their viewing,’ said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who joined eight Democratic colleagues in introducing the Internet Safety and Child Protection Act of 2005. ‘As parents, it is our responsibility to protect our children — and no longer does protecting our children mean only holding their hand while crossing the street.'”

The problem, according to the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) is that the Internet porn industry brings in $12 billion in annual revenues (think ABC + NBC + CBS, the Times-Picayune said) from 420 million Web pages frequented primarily by children aged 12 to 17.

“Lincoln said software is available that can help Web operators keep children away from viewing inappropriate material, but only 3 percent use them. Most only require a child to ‘check off’ a statement asserting that they are 18 or older, she said,” the newspaper reported.

Strangely enough, Lincoln’s Web site doesn’t contain a single press release or statement from 2005. For some official touting of the bill, see cosponsor Sen. Debbie Stabenow’s (Mich.) site . Other cosponsors include Sens. Kent Conrad (N.D.), Tom Carper (Del.), Joseph Lieberman (Conn.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Ken Salazar (Colo.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.). Democratic Reps. Jim Matheson (Utah) and Robert Menendez (N.J.) introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives.

The Bayou Buzz Web site noted that the bill was prompted by a report sponsored by The Third Way , which writer Steve Sabludowski described as a “a growing political organization, designed to energize the progressive base and end the partisan bickering that has overcome the United States. It has recently begun the New South Project, which is an effort to address the growing alienation of mainstream southerners from progressive ideas, leaders and groups. The New South Project is chaired by Sens. Landrieu and Mark Pryor, D-Ark.”

In other words, the idea is to raise more southern voter support for conservative-sounding policies that any good Democrat can back. What a relief! For a moment I thought that their primary purpose was to save the children.

The Associated Press carried some expert commentary: “Tim Richardson, an Internet commerce professor at Seneca College in Toronto, said the actual number of pornographic Web pages is impossible to confirm because they are so often duplicated to force Internet search engines to list them more prominently. But he said the growth has been astronomical because the pornography industry knows how to use technology to stay one step ahead of popular government regulations. ‘The whole launching of the porn industry in the 1980s was tied to the VCR and the ability to watch XXX movies in your own home,’ Richardson said. ‘There are precedents to how the porn industry has exploited technology, so the Internet is nothing new.'”

The Times-Picayune and the AP quoted Tom Hymes of the Free Speech Coalition for the porn industry’s spin. “The report says 12- to 17-year-olds are the top consumers of Internet pornography, based on older studies that found adult Web sites make their money based mainly on how many visitors they attract. Hymes said that business model didn’t work and was ditched by most Web sites around 2001,” the AP wrote. “‘This is completely offensive to this industry because it has matured over the last couple years. It is not interested in children coming to Web sites anymore,’ Hymes said. ‘We want verification, but we need a solution that works.'”

What we have on our hands here is a product of good intentions. No one wants to think about their kids spending hour after hour cruising sites for barely legal cheerleaders and smooth college boys. That’s a privilege we get along with our voter registration card and our registration for the draft.

As Richardson told the AP, the kids looking at porn aren’t the ones in real danger: “‘It’s not underage customers the government should be worried about,’ but minors pictured on the sites.”

Before that time, kids shouldn’t be using the Internet for porn binges, even though they will. The solution, as advocated by so many Internet safety experts from the pantheon of political viewpoints, is simple: Move the computer to the family room, and make sure the monitor is visible to anyone who walks through the room. While you’re at it, install a content filter.

I don’t call that a total solution, but as long as the connection feeds the home, kids can use it to look at whatever they want. If we want a real solution, we need to talk to our children about sex, pornography and the difference between the two.

If that won’t help them make more discerning choices about their Internet use, cut the connection when you’re not home.

You can say one thing about Internet porn — it won’t make you fat. You cannot say the same thing about advertisements for junk food, which a new report warns are imperiling the health of children.

“Food-promoting websites aimed at children as young as six are using marketing techniques that are banned in print and broadcast media,” the Scotsman reported. “The study for Food Magazine said foods high in fat, sugar and salt were being pushed at children via websites. It said young people are being encouraged to buy unhealthy food for prizes, or passwords that will let them take part in computer games. Advertisers are also promoting the idea that certain products will make children more popular, the report warns.”

The study was sponsored by a British group called Sustain, which wants a ban on junk-food marketing to children, the paper reported.

Here is a little more from the story: “The report found that many sites were specifically targeted at children as young as six or seven. It said children, who often accessed sites unsupervised, were being asked to give companies their contact details and those of their friends in order to allow companies to target them directly. Concerns were also raised about Chupa Chups, a popular brand of lolly, advertised on a website which says they are ‘good for you’. The advert goes on to say they are ‘a tasty way to give your brain a boost’, because some contain glucose. It also claims the vitamin C content can prevent and treat the common cold, fight bacteria and viruses, help speed up the healing of cuts and grazes and help to maintain healthy blood vessels.”

With names like ” Chupa Chups ” (featuring the homepage admonition that “Sucking is good for you!” — “It’s natural,” “It makes you feel good.”) and ” Flake,” I’m surprised that any amount of Web advertising can make kids eat these sweets. Of course, they’re probably wondering what would induce any self-respecting American to chomp on a “Chunky” or “Mounds.” But I digress…

What do you think when you hear the word “CoqRoq?” Try playing around with it out loud for a second.

Yeah, not Coq au Vin.

AdAge reported last week that Burger King, the generator of a Web site designed to promote a new chicken sandwich, accidentally created a big beef instead.

“Even though it has suddenly removed sexual double entendres from its new Web site, CoqRoq.com, Burger King today denied it had received any complaints from consumers or other outside groups,” AdAge wrote. “CoqRoq.com, created by Crispin Porter & Bogusky, Miami, the agency that created Burger King’s Subservient Chicken site, is designed to look like the kind of crudely outrageous Web site created by a rock band. … Among other things, CoqRoq.com, which is linked directly to the main Burger King Web site, includes photo galleries with Polaroid-style shots of young girls with the handwritten captions ‘Groupies love the Coq’ and ‘groupies love Coq.’ Since the site went live yesterday, those captions and others have been erased from the online materials.”

The AdAge staff, God bless ’em, took a screen shot, but for the life of me, I can’t find a single coq there.

AdAge also features two germane items: One on Motorola’s “Strip Tease” ad campaign, showing off the naughty benefits of its Moto E815 phone; the other is on “American Idol’s” Carrie Underwood and her appearance in the “Carrie Kit Kat” ad for Hershey’s Kit Kat Bar.