Troops Weigh in on Sale of Sexually Explicit Materials

Article taken from ArmyTimes.com:

A consumer group of enlisted members and officers should be formed “to help analyze material for decency,” in addition to the senior civilians who weed out sexually explicit magazines, videos and audio materials from the shelves of military stores.

That’s what one person suggested to Defense Department officials during their periodic review and updating of procedures for reviewing sexually explicit materials.

Nice try.

“Forming the suggested consumer group is unnecessary,” defense officials wrote in their response to that comment, included with others in the Nov. 15 edition of the Federal Register.

“The Resale Activities Board of Review includes civilian representatives from the Army, Navy, and Air Force who are capable of identifying sexually explicit material,” officials said.

The updated rule includes one new policy change that will open the door to reconsideration of some materials that have been previously rejected. Materials that have been determined by the board to be sexually explicit can be submitted for reconsideration every five years.

The Defense Department regulations are simply carrying out the Military Honor and Decency Act, passed by Congress 10 years ago. The law, spearheaded by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., has been challenged, but has been upheld in federal court.

Judging from the public comments in the Federal Register, it’s clear that many people are unaware of the law — and are surprised and concerned when they hear about it.

“I don’t want regulations on what I look at,” one service member wrote.

Others expressed concern about censorship and restrictions on free speech.

But as defense officials wrote in response to every one of these concerns, the regulation “does not prohibit the possession or viewing of the sexually explicit material” by military personnel or Defense Department civilian employees.

It only “prohibits the sale of sexually explicit material on property” under Defense Department jurisdiction.

Not everyone opposes the law; in fact one person wants it to go further.

“I don’t see how the barring of sale or rental of pornographic materials is going to help anything,” the person wrote.

If the issue is pornography on property owned by the Defense Department, “then possession of it should be banned entirely.”