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.

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.”

Lyrics Study May be too Late

Taken from Stars and Stripes (Letter Date: 16 AUG 2006):

In response to the Aug. 8 Associated Press article on music lyrics (“Study says raunchy lyrics prompt teens to have sex,” Mideast edition; “Study suggesting raunchy lyrics are prompting teens to have sex,” European edition): Did it take a study to finally realize the influence today’s so-called music has on our teens. The powers of suggestion within the lyrics make for inevitable responses to some degree. The young people are already in search of identity and for an explanation to the curious urges in their bodies.

My problem is that this should have been identified long ago, and some measures taken to avoid where we are now. Then, the bottom line identifies itself. Money! We have become a people who will do anything and/or allow anything for the love of money, even if it includes the cost of our youth. We want the best for them, but we continue to surround them with commercialized trash that really identifies who we are. Free enterprise allows these activities, whether they break moral parameters or not, to run rampant in our society and the world we live in. If only we could have nipped this in the bud. As it is, it may be too late. Study that.

Rev. (Capt.) Jeff Saffold Camp Arifjan, Kuwait

Guccione Loses Appeal on Military Ban - Bob Guccione, Penthouse Cannot be Sold on Military Bases

Taken from FindArticles.com (Article Date: 1 March 1998):

If the federal government has its way, Bob Guccione's going to have to peddle his Penthouse somewhere else. The government recently won a federal appeals decision upholding a ban on selling adult titles in military exchanges.

The ban, officially called the Military Honor and Decency Act, was part of a 1996 defense bill and prohibits exchanges from selling what it defines as "sexually explicit material."

Thought by some legal scholars to be unconstitutional, the ban was initially overturned in early 1997. But the government appealed, and won a two-to-one panel decision in the Second Circuit last November. Now, attorneys for Guccione have filed their own counter-appeal seeking an en banc hearing (meaning all Second Circuit judges would hear, and rule on, the case). If that request is denied, Guccione's vowing to take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"For any ordinary shop in the United States, we would agree with their right to carry or not carry any product for sale," Guccione says. "But when you force stores, through an act of Congress, to take a group of magazines and audiotapes and videotapes off the shelves, that is a First Amendment issue and clearly an act of censorship."

Supporters of the ban point out that it doesn't prohibit people in the military from buying the magazines off-base or subscribing to them. It merely bans the titles from being sold in base exchanges.

In 1997, the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, which runs all exchanges for those two branches, sold some $57 million in magazines, according to a spokesman. In exchanges around the world, AAFES carries 122 adult titles, accounting for 18 percent of total sales, though most stores only carry about five. Those titles are still currently on the shelves.

Lawrence Savell, a media law specialist at the New York City firm of Chadbourne & Park, says he thinks Guccione's appeal has merit. "Under classic First Amendment analysis, this [ban] wouldn't hold up," Savell says. "When you start distinguishing between different types of material, that undermines the legitimacy of the statute." He points out that the law as it's currently written would not ban a book containing erotic content, but would ban an audio recording of that book. Similarly, Penthouse is banned, but a book containing images from Penthouse would not be.

The Effects of Video Games: A No-Brainer?

Taken from FRC.org:

Parents may not be the only ones with a violent reaction to video games. A new study from the Indiana University School of Medicine monitored brain activity in children with no history of behavioral problems. What they discovered was increased evidence of "emotional arousal" and "decreased responses in regions that govern self-control" when teens played particularly violent, as opposed to merely fast-action, video games. While the research did find short-term effects on the brain, professors admit that further studies are needed to establish a credible link between violent games and actual aggression. As violence levels and virtual realism increase in these games that dominate so much youthful time, more studies are urgently needed. As a parent, one thing's for sure--science doesn't need to find further proof that, when it comes to my kids' entertainment, caution is the name of the game.

This study only shows one thing in reference to AAFES. These Mature-Rated video games sold by AAFES requires more attention when being sold to minors. AAFES should incorporate policies that protect minors from purchasing these games. This study clearly shows that video games should be taken seriously. It also clearly should mean to AAFES that AAFES has responsibility for what it sells and who it sells them to.

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.”

Wal-Mart Makes Check-Out Lanes Family-Friendly

Taken from CWFA.org (Article Date: June 11, 2003):

Places Blinders Over Racy Magazines

Wal-Mart’s latest move toward a family-friendly environment is being greeted by cheers and ringing registers. On June 6 the nation’s largest retailer announced that it will be installing U-shaped blinders over four racy women’s magazines in its check-out aisles.

“For at least a year we’d been getting some feedback … from customers
who were uncomfortable with [the covers],” Wal-Mart spokesman Jay Allen told Reuters on Friday.

Wal-Mart announced that it will be installing specially
made, U-shaped magazine racks that will conceal the story tease lines on each side of the magazine, leaving the center and the magazine’s name viewable.

The magazines involved are Cosmopolitan, Redbook, Marie Claire and
Glamour. Those magazines will continue to be displayed in the store’s magazine section without any sort of cover.

Wal-Mart has been testing various blinders and ways to satisfy the
magazine’s readers while protecting children. The new magazine rack blinders should be in all Wal-Mart stores by July.

“We are very pleased that Wal-Mart has taken this step to protect our families,” said Robert H. Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America.

“This action, along with the discontinued sale of the racy men’s
magazines, and the retailer’s refusal to sell music with adult-rated lyrics, among other things, show’s Wal-Mart’s commitment to the family,” he added.

“We encourage families to be looking for these new blinders, and when
they see them to make sure they extend a thank-you to the store manager,” Knight said.

Arthur Ally, coalition leader and president of The Timothy Plan, a collection of pro-family mutual funds and, said he hopes that appreciative families will further reward the retail giant.

“I hope that customers will take the time to link their appreciation for
this action to their patronage of the retailer. Wal-Mart’s ‘language of love’ is the ringing of its registers. That 'thank-you,' linked to this action, will go a long way in the fight for decency both at Wal-Mart and among its competitors,” Ally told Culture & Family Report.

The Timothy Plan is also saying “thank-you” to the company by reversing its August decision to sell all of its shares of Wal-Mart stock. That move was made after repeated requests for the action went unheeded.

“As of today, Wal-Mart is off our screens,” Ally said. “Our fund managers now have a green light to buy Wal-Mart shares for our
family of mutual funds.”

Those customer complaints that led to this change were accompanied by united action from 10 pro-family groups, which sent a collection of letters to the retailer on May 30, 2003, asking for removal of the magazines from the check-out aisles. Each group stressed the action's goal was to protect families and children.

“A large percentage of your customer base does not appreciate having the kinds of sexually explicit (cover-page) headlines touted by these publications staring them (or their children or other family members) in the face as they wait to pay for their purchases,” wrote Robert Peters, president of Morality in Media, to Lee Scott, head of the Bentonville, Arkansas, retailer, which had $244.5 billion dollars in sales last year.

“We have heard from many, many people regarding how offensive they find such publications staring them and their children in the face as they make their family purchases at their local Wal-Marts,” wrote Concerned Women for America President Sandy Rios.

The letters were sent to Wal-Mart thanking them for its early May decision to stop selling three sexually suggestive men’s magazines, Maxim, FHM and Stuff.

“However, of greater concern than what magazines are available to willing customers is the question of what magazines are forced upon unwilling customers by being aggressively displayed in the check-out lanes of your stores,” wrote Family Research Council President Kenneth Connor.

Appeals Court Upholds Ban of Sale of Porn at Military Bases

Taken from SFGate.com (Article Date: September 13th, 2002):

A U.S. appeals court in San Francisco today upheld the federal Military Honor and Decency Act, which prohibits the sale or rental of sexually explicit magazines and videos on military bases.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the 1996 law does not violate the First Amendment right of free speech.

A three-judge panel said the law is reasonable because it seeks to
restrict the sale of materials "at odds with the military's image of honor,
professionalism and proper decorum.''

The court made its ruling in a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Jose in 1996 by three magazine distributors and three individuals.

The panel affirmed a 1999 ruling in which U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose turned down the magazine distributors' bid for a preliminary injunction.

The law primarily affects post exchanges -- the military stores that are open only to present and former armed services families.

A Department of Defense agency called the Resale Activities Board of Review periodically evaluates materials sold and rented at the exchanges and decides which books, magazines, films and tapes should be banned because they are sexually explicit.

The appeals court said free-speech rights are somewhat restricted at a military exchange because an exchange is not a traditional public forum where free speech is exercised.

The panel said an exchange is not a public forum because the military controls the items stocked and limits public access to the stores.

The 9th Circuit court agreed with a similar ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in 1997. Lawyers for the magazine distributors were not immediately available for comment today.

The Pentagon Takes Aim on Pornography

Taken from TFFKY.org (Article date: March 1999):

After a two-year court battle the Pentagon issued an historic directive last Sept. 21 to remove hard-core pornography from U.S. military bases worldwide, including Kentucky’s two bases at Fort Campbell and Fort Knox. The new policy is likely to have a massive effect as the military has been one of the nation’s largest outlets for hard-core pornography.

The sequence of events leading up to the action began in 1996 when Congress passed the Military Honor and Decency Act, banning the sale of sexually explicit material portraying nudity in “a lascivious way.” After a two-year court and appeal process, an eight-member panel was set up by the Department of Defense to decide precisely which materials pass the “lascivious” test.

Publications such as Penthouse and Hustler were found to fail the new guidelines and consequently have been banned from military base commissaries, while Playboy was allowed to remain. Altogether, the eight-member panel ordered 153 sexually explicit publications and videos to be removed from base shelves. Through this first assessment process only 14 items were permitted to remain, but the panel will continue to review material on an ongoing basis, thus making it possible for more to be dropped.

Hard-core pornography was permitted to stay in base stores for two years after the law was challenged by General Media Communications, the publisher of Penthouse magazine. General Media lost its final appeal when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected their arguments and let the ban stand.

“Its about time,” said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, author of the Military Honor and Decency Act. “It’s sad that the military had to wait for an act of Congress and more than two years of litigation up to the Supreme Court before it could become a responsible employer and remove this garbage from Department of Defense store shelves.”

According to Fred Bluhm, Chief, Media Branch for the Army Air Force Exchange Service — the supplier of all commissary goods to the U.S. military, the removal of sexually explicit materials will cost base commissaries worldwide at least $10 million dollars per year in sales.

Kentucky’s two major military bases — Fort Campbell and Fort Knox, are home to nearly 50,000 family members who will notice a difference next time they shop at their base store. At Fort Campbell 90 different magazines and videos have been removed from the shelves. Not quite as many were removed from Fort Knox since it is a smaller base and sold fewer of the targeted materials.

Shoppers frequenting the base stores will now be able to navigate through a much more family-friendly atmosphere and peruse the shelves minus scores of sexually offensive material. “If you were to ask the average housewife and family member on base, most would say they welcome the action to remove sexually explicit material from base stores,” says Fort Campbell’s Public Affairs Officer, Lt. Col. Bill Buckner.

Some suggest that removal of the obscene material sends a strong message that the U.S. government is in the business of promoting more than just morale amongst the troops. “The army is values-based,” says Buckner. “It is about respect, honor, integrity, discipline, and courage.”

Porn A Growing Problem in Military (Family.org Article)

Taken from Family.org:

Porn A Growing Problem in Military
from staff reports

Chaplains report an increasing number of confessions from servicemen and women about addiction.

Pornography is causing a problem in the military, with chaplains overseas and at home reporting that an increasing number of servicemen and women are confessing to their pastors about porn's hold on them.

Father Mark Reilly, a Marine Corps chaplain, recently returned from a tour in Iraq where he heard continual confessions from soldiers addicted to porn.

"People will mail them stuff," he told Family News in Focus, "and the Internet is the biggest source of the spread of this addiction I would say."

The combination of war stress and being away from loved ones is a bad mixture for a porn addiction, he explained, adding that curbing the problem starts at home.

"I have trouble with the fact that you can step into the PX and buy pornography," Reilly said. "I don't think our Post Exchanges need to be in the business of peddling porn."

Congress enacted the Military Honor and Decency Act in 1996 to ban the sale of sexually explicit magazines and videos at military stores. Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, said the law isn't being enforced.

"When a military base makes available pornography, or condones it, or does nothing about it when it comes in through other areas," she said, "it sort of implies that it's OK with the leadership."

Donnelly said she wants porn in the PX revisited, and it should start with admitting there's a problem.

"Congress is going to have to take a look at this. Certainly the Pentagon is going to have to enforce those rules," she said. "It's a matter of good order and discipline and not just a matter of religion or free speech. It's a matter that the military itself needs to be concerned about."

In the meantime, the only help soldiers are finding is in the confessional and from their chaplains.

Pornography a Problem in the Military (ABC News Article)

Taken from ABCNews.Go.com:

Combating the 'Problem of Pornography'
Divorce rates in the military have risen, especially in the Army, where the number of divorces nearly doubled from 2001 to 2004, according to the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland.

Chaplain Randy Brandt, stationed in Schweinfurt, Germany, said the kits have helped combat the "problem of pornography."

"Even while we were in Iraq, the pervasion of this problem was evident — soldiers had porno CDs they could play on their personal DVDs, and they had sexually suggestive magazines "graciously" donated for the soldiers' entertainment," Brandt said. "The problem is an age-old one with the military: Soldiers are far away from home for a long time, sexual frustration sets in, and the visual stimuli become the easiest release."

But Brandt said the real problem starts when the soldiers return home.

"The soldiers come home, many are addicted to this type of sexual stimulation and either consciously or subconsciously they begin to compare their current relationship with the visual/Internet/virtual reality that they are used to and unfortunately, the real woman — wife or girlfriend — rarely can measure up," Brandt said.