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.