Congressman Broun Introduces Anti-Pornography Legislation

Source: http://broun.house.gov/apps/list/press/ga10_broun/AntiPornography.shtml

April 17, 2008
Washington D.C.- U.S. Congressman Paul C. Broun, M.D. announced today the introduction of legislation designed to stem the sale of pornography on military installations. Broun’s legislation, the “Military Honor and Decency Act,” closes a loophole in current law that is allowing the sale of sexually explicit material on American military installations located both within the United States and around the world. Although the “National Defense Authorization Act of 1997” expressly prevents the Secretary of Defense from permitting the sale or rental of sexually explicit material on property under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense (DoD), subsequent regulations adopted by the Department of Defense have continued to allow the sale of sexually explicit material to occur. Congressman Broun’s legislation closes these existing loopholes in DoD regulations to bring the Department into compliance with the intent of the 1997 law so that taxpayers will not be footing the costs of distributing pornography.

“As a Marine, I am deeply concerned for the welfare of our troops and their mission,” said Broun. “Allowing the sale of pornography on military bases has harmed military men and women by: escalating the number of violent, sexual crimes; feeding a base addiction; eroding the family as the primary building block of society; and denigrating the moral standing of our troops both here and abroad. Our troops should not see their honor sullied so that the moguls behind magazines like Playboy and Penthouse can profit. The ‘Military Honor and Decency Act’ will right a bureaucratic--and moral--wrong.”

Congressman Broun’s legislation makes the following specific changes to current law:
· Modifies the current definition of sexually explicit, to lower the threshold required to deem material sexually explicit.
· Adds a new definition of “principal theme” which makes it clear to the DoD that the threshold has been lowered.
· Adds a definition of “lascivious” that is broader than what is included in the DoD Instruction on the sale of sexually explicit material.
· Adds a definition of “nudity” that makes it much more difficult for the DoD’s Resale Activities Board of Review (RABR) to approve the sale of sexually explicit material.
· Requires that DoD annually review material that is not currently deemed sexually explicit (and therefore allowed) to determine if it should be prohibited. RABR failed to meet a single time between FY 2000 and 2005. Congressman Broun’s legislation is officially designated as H.R. 5821 and has already attracted 15 cosponsors.

A congressman cracks down on soft porn at the PX

Taken from Newsweek.com on 8 May 2008:

You know something's wrong when the word areola appears in a bill circulating on Capitol Hill. Republican Congressman Paul Broun, the representative from Georgia's 10th District, wants to stop the sale of Playboy and Penthouse at military bases around the world, invoking an argument that at the very least is scientifically questionable: that consuming even soft pornography makes men more prone to committing sex crimes. A doctor by profession, Broun says he began drafting the bill after a constituent described her distress at having watched, along with her young children, an officer buy a nudie magazine at a military exchange store. "The military teaches to respect officers, and her little kids were seeing this military officer … there in uniform, buying pornography at the PX," Broun told NEWSWEEK.

Congress already has a law from 1996 banning the sale of "sexually explicit" material on military bases. But deciding what qualifies as sexually explicit was left to a Department of Defense review board, which gathers periodically to examine a range of magazines and DVDs. In its review two years ago the board banned such titles as Bootylicious and Juggs but decided that Penthouse has enough nonsexual content to be acceptable (Playboy had already been allowed). Lt. Col. Les Melnyk, a Pentagon spokesman, said the board members are kept anonymous in order not to expose them to outside pressure but have included active, reserve and retired members of the military, military spouses, members of dual-military couples and DoD civilians. "The board is very disciplined in adhering to the definitions described in the Instruction [from Congress], and has access to legal counsel to assist members in interpreting the law and the Instruction," Melnyk said in an
e-mail.

Broun, who is 61, wants to take away the board's discretion by inserting into the old law some new language delineating terms like "sexually explicit." His bill gets (readers be warned) blush-inducingly specific. It defines nudity, for instance, as the display of "human genitals, pubic area, anus, anal cleft, or any part of the female breast below a horizontal line across the top of the areola."

Even for people who support the congressman from Georgia (he has attracted 16 co-sponsors since introducing the bill April 16), it must be hard not to conclude that he's fighting yesterday's war. Judd Anstey, the public relations manager for the Army & Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), says the combined sales of Playboy and Penthouse at bases around the world last year amounted to less than 3 percent of AAFES's total magazine sales. (Magazines generally make up only a small part of sales by AAFES stores, which stock everything from candy bars to plasma TVs.) For Broun's generation the pictures in Playboy and Penthouse were probably the dirtiest things around. In the Internet age GIs with laptops are never more than a couple of clicks away from much raunchier porn. Broun says the point is pornography shouldn't be subsidized by taxpayers. And he insists nudie magazines have taken a toll on the armed services. "Sexual assault is going up within the military, and I certainly think there's a very high likelihood the pornography being sold in military PXs is contributing to that," he says. Both points are off the mark

Bill: Stop selling Playboy, Penthouse on base

Taken from Army Times (5 May 2008):

By Karen Jowers - Staff writer, Posted : Thursday Apr 24, 2008 8:21:42
EDT

Concerned that the military is selling pornography in exchange stores in spite of a ban, one lawmaker has introduced a bill to clean up the matter.

“Our troops should not see their honor sullied so that the moguls behind magazines like Playboy and Penthouse can profit,” said Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., unveiling his House bill April 16.

His Military Honor and Decency Act would amend a provision of the 1997 Defense Authorization Act that banned sales of “sexually explicit material” on military bases.

The new language would “close existing loopholes” in regulations to bring the military “into compliance with the intent of the 1997 law,” Broun said.

“Allowing sale of pornography on military bases has harmed military men and women by escalating the number of violent, sexual crimes, feeding a base addiction, eroding the family as the primary building block of society, and denigrating the moral standing of our troops both here and abroad,” Broun said. Broun said he wants to bring the Defense Department into compliance with the intent of the 1997 law “so that taxpayers will not be footing the costs of distributing pornography.”

Exchange officials noted that tax dollars are not used to procure magazines in the system’s largely self-funded operations.

But Broun’s spokesman John Kennedy contended that taxpayer dollars are involved — “used to pay military salaries, so taxpayer money is, in effect, being used to buy these materials,” he said.

Broun’s bill, which has 15 co-sponsors and has been referred to the House Armed Services Committee for consideration, would tighten the definition of pornography. One part of the provision states that if a print publication is a periodical, it would be considered sexually explicit if “it regularly features or gives prominence to nudity or sexual or excretory activities or organs in a lascivious way.”

Previously, defense officials have said, they do not consider nudity in itself to be “lascivious.”

“It’s not our intent to have an art magazine banned,” Kennedy said. “Our intention is to enforce the 1997 law so that magazines are banned that feature nudity in a way to develop a prurient interest in a reader.”

He said Broun has specifically named Playboy and Penthouse because those two publications “were always intended to be banned and will now be covered.” Playboy was determined not to be sexually explicit by the Defense Department’s Resale Activities Board of Review.

Although Penthouse initially was banned, new ownership and a new editing team have revised its format, and the Defense Department board allowed it to return to exchanges after another review last year.

“Few people will contest the notion that Playboy and Penthouse and others are sexually explicit,”

Kennedy said. “However, DoD officials with a wink and a nod do not find that these rise to the definition.”

Kennedy said Broun “is a medical doctor and ‘addictionologist’ who is familiar with the negative consequences associated with long-term exposure to pornography,” especially women in the military “who have to deal with this.” Until now, the board has been required to review only newly submitted material, and also reconsider material banned for at least five years, at the request of the publication.

Broun’s proposed legislation would require the Defense Department to annually review all material that is not deemed sexually explicit now, and is therefore allowed in military stores, to determine if it should be prohibited.

The board did not meet between 2000 and 2005, Broun said. In 2006, the Defense Department changed its policy to let banned material be resubmitted for review every five years.

Former Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione challenged the 1997 law in court, claiming it violated his free-speech rights by using government bureaucrats as censors.

A U.S. district court judge agreed and barred enforcement of the law. But a divided appeals court overruled, saying military exchanges are “nonpublic forums in which the government may restrict the content of speech.”

The Supreme Court sided with the appeals court and declined to hear the case in June 1998.

DoD Response to Alliance Defense Fund

This is the response from the DoD in regards to the Alliance Defense Fund letter in the previous post. Here is the link: ConstitutionallyCorrect.com. Here is the text:

Mr. Alan E. Sears
President, CEO & General Counsel
Alliance Defense Fund
15333 N. Pima Road, Suite 165
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260

Dear Mr. Sears:

Thank you for your letter dated May 4 to the Secretary of Defense concerning the periodicals and videos sold in military exchange stores. Since Departments of Defense (DoD) policy on this issue falls within my purview, I am responding.

The Military Honor and Decency Act of 1996 (the Act), 10 U.S.C. 2489a, prohibits the sale or rental of sexually explicit material on property under DoD jurisdiction and requires the established Resale Activities Board of Review (the "Board"), which reviews material offered for sale or rental on property under DoD jurisdiction to ensure that it is not sexually explicit as defined by the Act.

Pursuant to the Department of Defense Instruction 4105.70, "Sale or Rental of Sexually Explicit Material on DoD Property," the Board reviewed Celebrity Skin, Penthouse, and Playmates In Bed and determined that, based solely on the totality of each magazine's contect, they were not sexually explicit. Therefore, the sale of these magazines on DoD property is permissible. The Board recently determined that all "Peach Video DVD's" shall be considered sexually explicit which include, "Blonde and Beyond," "Girls Night In," "Import Skin," "Sex Symbols," and "Wet." Therefore, the sale of these videos on DoD property is not permissible.

We have notified the Board and have asked that it expeditiously review Curves, FHM, Hot Shots 2007 by Playboy, Playboy's Vixen, and XXX. The Board will review these items to determine if they are sexually explicit, and will advise the exchanges to cease selling these items until the Board has made its determination.

I trust this information proves helpful.

Sincerely,

Leslye A. Arsht
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Military Community and Family Policy)

Letter to Secretary of Defense Gates

We have the text of the letter written to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates by the Alliance Defense Fund. We at FixAAFES.org highly encourage you to support this letter and let your petition be known. Here is the link to the PDF file: AllianceAlert.org. Below is the text:

The Honorable Robert M. Gates
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense
Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20301

Dear Secretary Gates,
Greetings and thank you for your dedication and commitment to America’s service men and women and their families. During this time in our history when so much is being required of our Armed Forces, they deserve no less than the utmost respect and thanks from each and every one of us. They selflessly give their best to us day in and day out. These men and women of honor and integrity also deserve our best in return.

Several years ago in an effort to ensure our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines had the best environment in which to work and raise their families, the 1996 Military Honor and Decency Act was enacted by Congress, 10 U.S.C. § 2489. The Act banned the sale or rental of "sexually explicit material" on U.S. military installations or in military exchange stores such as AAFES, NEX and MCEX. The statute defines "sexually explicit material" to include recordings, films, videos, periodicals with visual depictions, or materials "produced in any medium, the dominant theme of which depicts or describes nudity, including sexual or excretory activities or organs, in a lascivious way." Congress could not have spoken more plainly when it passed the Military Honor and Decency Act. This type of material is not appropriate or in keeping with the military’s values of honor and integrity- core values of every branch of service of the United States Armed Forces.

We were troubled to learn from service members and their families that, despite the law on the books, these types of materials are widely available on U.S. military installations. A survey was conducted of various military bases and we have confirmed that materials prohibited under the Military Honor and Decency Act are being sold. Sadly, it seems true, that the Act is not being enforced by the Department of Defense.

The following is a small sampling of what is prohibited under the law but currently available for sale, according to first-hand witnesses:
Andrews Air Force Base: Playboy, Penthouse, Perfect 10, Playboy College Girls, Nude Playmates, FHM, Celebrity Skin, Playboy’s Vixens.
Edwards Air Force Base: Playboy, Playboy College Girls, FHM, Playboy’s Vixens.

Fort Bragg: XXX, Playboy College Girls, Perfect 10, Curves, FHM.
Fort Knox: Playboy, Penthouse, Nude, Perfect 10, Playboy’s Vixens.
Pearl Harbor: Playboy, Perfect 10.
Pentagon: FHM
United States Military Academy: Perfect 10, Playboy Lingerie, Hot Shots 2007 by Playboy, Playmates in Bed
United States Air Force Academy: Playboy, Lingerie, Playboy’s Vixens, Playboy’s College Girls, Nude, Perfect 10, Curves

There were very important reasons that motivated Congress to pass the Military Honor and Decency Act. Families and children frequent military exchanges and were exposed to pornography. Sexual harassment experienced by military service women was a major concern. The fact that materials sold in military exchanges predominately depicted sexually exploitive images of females is linked to such harassment. Pornography’s destructive impact on individuals and on marriages was a primary concern. Married life combined with the rigors of military life is difficult enough without adding easy access to pornography to the strain. News articles reveal that addiction to pornography is becoming a significant problem among servicemen. There are reports from chaplains that this addiction is becoming a theme among those they counsel. Military law enforcement officials are seeing more service members arrested and/or charged with the sexual abuse of a child. These problems have escalated during the period of non-enforcement of the Military Honor and Decency Act. When it was signed into law, there was overwhelming support for this important legislation because of the evidence demonstrating its necessity.

Military exchanges in the Middle East do not sell sexually exploitive materials out of respect of Middle Eastern values. Yet, while American values also do not support the sexual exploitation of women, respect is not being shown of our own beliefs of honor and integrity for every individual. Even though the law is on the books, the Department of Defense has not enforced it properly.

We, the undersigned, appreciate the opportunity to apprise you of the current situation. We also appreciate your consideration of the concerns outlined in this letter. It would be our hope to meet with you privately at your earliest convenience to learn how we can support an effort to immediately enforce the Military Honor and Decency Act. We believe in your commitment of nothing but the best for our brave service men and women and their families. Please affirm that commitment by enforcing this important law.

Thank you very much. We look forward to hearing from you in the near future.
Sincerely,
Alan E. Sears
Former Executive Director
Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography

Bryan Wickens
President
Reclaim Our Culture Kentuckiana, Inc. ("ROCK")
Louisville, Kentucky

Patrick A. Trueman
Former Chief
Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
U.S. Dept. of Justice

cc:
AAFES: MG Bill Essex, Commander
NEX: Rear Admiral R.E. Crowley, III, Commander
MCX: BG (ret) Michael Downs, Director

Military Defends Ruling on Sales of Adult Material on DOD Property

Taken from Stars and Stripes (15 SEP 2007):

By Jeff Schogol, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Saturday, September 15, 2007

ARLINGTON, Va. — The Defense Department and a Christian group are at odds over whether adult material sold on department property should instead be banned.

The Military Honor and Decency Act prohibits sexually explicit material from being sold in military exchanges and elsewhere on Defense Department property, said department spokesman Lt. Col. Les Melnyk. But a department review board is tasked with determining what material is considered explicit and what is permitted.

Since 1998, the review board has reviewed 473 titles and deemed 319, or about 67 percent, to be sexually explicit, Melnyk said. The board had previously banned Penthouse and Playgirl as explicit material, but reversed those decisions in May 2006.

The Christian group Alliance Defense Fund sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates in May that protested the sale of those and other adult magazines at military exchanges, saying they violated the decency act.

But the review board had already determined that “based solely on each of the magazines’ content, they were not sexually explicit,” Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for military community and family policy Leslye Arsht said in a response to the group.

Figuring out which adult magazines and other material cross the line on sexually explicit material is a delicate balancing act, Melnyk said.

“The Department of Defense is committed to upholding both the Military Honor and Decency Act, and publishers’ and readers’ First Amendment protections, which the men and women of the United States Armed Forces defend every day,” Melnyk said.

In her letter, Arsht did not elaborate how the board came to the conclusion that the magazines are not sexually explicit, but cited the “Peach Video DVDs” as examples of material that cannot be sold on exchanges.

But Patrick A. Trueman, attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, said the members of the review board need to use “a little common sense” in determining which materials cannot be sold on Defense Department property.

“The law is not complicated in its definition of ‘sexually explicit,’ ” Trueman said. “The porn magazines that are allowed such as ‘Nude Playmates,’ ‘Playboy,’ ‘Penthouse,’ etc. are sexually explicit.”

Trueman also noted that Congress has the ability to limit troops’ First Amendment rights: “Military men and woman are not permitted to wear anti-war symbols and may be required to shave and wear their hair at a certain length, for example.” He said the intent of the Military Honor and Decency Act is clear.

“Congress was concerned about sexual harassment in the military and making military duty more accommodating to servicewomen,” he said. “It was also attempting to protect military families, particularly children, who frequent the exchanges and should not be exposed to porn.”

The review board consists of representatives from each of the services and their military exchanges, with both men and women members as well as active-duty, reserve and retired servicemembers, Melnyk said.

Anti-porn Groups Decry Exchange Sale Policy

Taken from Army Times (22 SEP 2007):

By Karen Jowers - Staff writer

Upset that the Pentagon allows military exchanges to sell adult magazines such as Penthouse, Celebrity Skin, Playboy’s Vixens and others, more than 40 anti-pornography groups plan to appeal to the Pentagon inspector general.

“The question of selling pornography in military exchanges has been decided by Congress, and the Department of Defense cannot change the law,” said Patrick Trueman, special counsel to the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian public interest law firm that is one of the signatories to a May 4 letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Army and Air Force Exchange Service officials said concerns about “adult sophisticate” materials represent a small portion of complaints to AAFES.

Last year, 27 comments — less than 0.2 percent of the 16,344 comments AAFES received — expressed dissatisfaction with the adult sophisticate assortment, spokesman Judd Anstey said. One customer asked for an expanded assortment.

Penthouse returned to military exchanges this summer 10 years after a Pentagon review board banned it as sexually explicit. But the anti-porn groups weren’t spurred by Penthouse alone; other magazines, such as Playboy, were not banned but are still on the groups’ list of targets.

Following a Pentagon rule in late 2006 that allows banned material to be reviewed every five years, Penthouse was reviewed this spring and was reinstated, along with Playgirl and Ultra for Men. Hustler was reviewed again, along with 14 other publications that were deemed to still be sexually explicit and will remain banned from exchanges.

But there has been no change in the law or the Pentagon board’s definitions of “sexually explicit.”

Rather, the change was in the magazine, Penthouse publisher Diane Silberstein said. New owners who took over in 2004 have worked to recreate Penthouse based on the magazine’s “original DNA” when it was launched in 1969, she said.

They hired two research firms, which collected data showing that while men do want to see young women in their entirety, they want more glamour shots, Penthouse representatives said.

“Men are attracted to the magazine by beautiful women ... and stay because they want to read the articles,” she said. They didn’t revamp the magazine in an effort specifically to get it back into military exchanges, she said, but simply “created the best magazine for the marketplace.”

However, she noted, Penthouse “has had a long relationship with the military.” The magazine wrote about issues confronting veterans after the Vietnam War, such as Agent Orange exposure.

“We’re also doing a number of articles to support returning vets” of the current wars, she said, to include an in-depth article on debt in the military.

“Penthouse is thrilled to be back on military bases,” she said.

By July, it was back in more than 500 exchange outlets worldwide, including in the Iraq and Afghanistan combat zones. Sales figures are not available yet.

Penthouse was one of more than 200 publications banned in the late 1990s by the Resale Activities Board of Review as a result of the 1996 Military Honor and Decency Act, which prohibits the sale of “sexually explicit material,” to include audio recordings, films, videos or periodicals, in military resale outlets.

Sexually explicit material is defined as having “as a dominant theme the depiction or description of nudity, including sexual or excretory activities or organs, in a lascivious way.”

The law does not affect troops’ ability to buy adult material in stores outside installations or to purchase subscriptions.

In response to the groups’ complaints, Leslye Arsht, deputy undersecretary of defense for military community and family policy, wrote that the board reviewed Celebrity Skin, Penthouse, Perfect 10, Playboy, Playboy’s College Girls, Playboy’s Lingerie, Nude, Nude Playmates and Playmates in Bed — “and determined that, based solely on the totality of each magazine’s content, they were not sexually explicit.”

As such, their sale in exchanges “is permissible,” Arsht wrote in a letter to the groups last month.

At press time, defense officials had no comment on how many magazines and other materials have been reviewed since defense officials decided late last year that publishers could request a new review once they had been banned for five years.

The board’s interpretation makes “no sense,” Trueman said. The Alliance Defense Fund and the other groups contend that Playboy, Penthouse, Perfect 10 and a host of other publications and videos sold in the exchanges are prohibited by the law.

“Who reviews the review board? I wonder if there are any military wives on this review board,” he said. “You hear people say, ‘I only buy it for the articles,’ but who believes that?

“How could a person with any ... common sense say these are not sexually explicit? The Department of Defense feels awkward about taking porn away from service members.”

He cited incidents of sexual harassment in the military and other problems that he contends are exacerbated by pornography.

“I know from my 20 years as a prosecutor and as an activist that men involved in porn look at women in a different way,” he said. “At the military academies, they’re selling the same magazines. Don’t women deserve to be safe in that environment?”

While Trueman was serving as chief of the child exploitation and obscenity section in the criminal division of the Justice Department, he said, he tried unsuccessfully to get Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush to issue executive orders banning porn in military exchanges. He later supported the 1996 law.

The groups were prompted to complain to Gates, Trueman said, after concerns were raised this spring by some troops and their families that porn was still sold in exchanges.

Army wife MaryAnn Gramig, who lives at Fort Knox, Ky., and is the research and policy director for the nonprofit organization Rock: Building Stronger Communities and Families, said she surveyed a number of exchanges by phone, including those at the academies, after some complaints were raised.

“I happened to be a military spouse working for a pro-family group,” she said.

But she’s long been aware of adult materials sold in the exchange at her own base, she said.

“I have three children, and we shop at the exchange. I don’t let them go to the periodical section without me,” she said. “There’s enough stress on the military and families. This doesn’t help.”