Bill would ban sales of Playboy, etc. on base

[Lanya]

[This is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. ]

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/04/military_pornography_stores_042208w/

Bill: Stop selling Playboy, Penthouse on base

By Karen Jowers - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Apr 23, 2008 17:10:01 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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Sure. Banning porn at the BX would surely prevent soldiers from buying it at all.

[Stray Pooch]

Sure. Banning porn at the BX would surely prevent soldiers from buying it at all.

It's a PX, not a BX.  Bases are for ships and planes.  The Army has posts.

The argument that banning something will not stop someone from doing it is a rationalization.  I will grant that the soldiers who want to get the stuff can go downtown or just use the net, but banning it makes the point that such material is inappropriate and gets the stuff out of the PX.  Soldiers will buy drugs, too, but we still ban the stuff.

[Xavier_Onassis]

So I take it you favor keeping our brave fighting men away from the lustpit that Larry Flynt hath wrought?

With so many women in the military, perhaps vibrators and other personal electric pleasure devices should also be banned.

Should a soldier be allowed to subscribe to Playboy, Penthouse or Hustler?

Should pinups be banned, and if so, all or just some?

[Universe Prince]

banning it makes the point that such material is inappropriate

No, banning it from the PX makes the point that getting it will be less convenient. Banning from the post altogether might make the point that is it inappropriate, but I won't advocate that.

Soldiers will buy drugs, too, but we still ban the stuff.

Case in point. Drugs are not banned only at the PX. Drugs are banned from the post as well, are they not?

[Stray Pooch]

No, banning it from the PX makes the point that getting it will be less convenient. Banning from the post altogether might make the point that is it inappropriate, but I won't advocate that.

I am not talking about the general public.  Banning the stuff at the PX makes the point that the Army considers this to be inappropriate material for soldiers.  Perhaps you mean that the Army should ban any possession or use of such materials by soldiers.  In many situations that IS the case.  In a training environment, for example, any pornography is considered contraband.  Since society in general recognizes a certain right to use pornographic materials, banning it altogether might not be legally sustainable.  But refusing to sell it at Army-owned facilities does, in fact, make the point that the Army does not consider it to be appropriate.

Case in point. Drugs are not banned only at the PX. Drugs are banned from the post as well, are they not?

Yes, but, paradoxically, I was speaking in this case more generically.  I could just as easily have said "People will buy drugs too."  My point is that people always argue that making a law against something will not stop the practice.  I say that is a deflection.  Banning abortion will not stop abortions from occurring.  Banning rape, robbery and murder will not stop those things either.  But they will, in fact, drastically reduce the incidence of such behaviors.  Some people, of course, will not obey the law, but most will.  Some will obey the law out of a sense of morality and decency.  For them, laws might not even be necessary.  But others will obey the law out of a fear of consequence, and might well indulge in unacceptable behaviors if there were no consequence. 

This is why people used to go to Thailand to indulge in deviant behaviors which would get them a jail sentence here.  Even the most law abiding folks might, in the absence of specific laws and the attendant consequences, be tempted to go to dark places.  Arguing against laws because they will not stop a practice is, when logically considered, arguing against any laws, and perhaps in fact arguing against any morality at all.   Arguing against a law because it is intrusive, inappropriately restrictive, or perhaps imposing one's will upon another makes sense, even if one disagrees with that premise.  But claiming that a law will not change behaviors is not valid.  It's far easier for an African-American person to get a job or rent a home today than it was 50 years ago.  Some of that is social change, but a whole lot of it is law. 

I just see too many cliches used as argument.  This is one of them.  The technique is not limited to this particular debate.  This argument is constantly used, and it is just as wrong each time.

[Xavier_Onassis]

My point is that people always argue that making a law against something will not stop the practice.  I say that is a deflection.
==================================================
But porn is not illegal, as drugs are. There is a justification for refusing to sell coke or smack at the PX because they are illegal everywhere in the country, but banning Hustler from the PX is less justified, because it is legal elsewhere.

I suppose that it would cost less at the PX than in town, because everything is sold at near cost at the PX, or at least that is how it used to be.

You do not address the issue of whether you would support denying our brave fighting men porn at their PX. Is there some reason to do this, or is it just some sort of stupid prudery of this Congresscritter?

It would also be inconsistent of the government to deny porn to soldiers, and yet let sailors, marines and airmen purchase it at their PX's.

I might add that the actual result would not be that the soldiers would have or not have porn, those that like it would still have it, but they would have less variety. The likely result would be that their erotic fantasies might be slightly less exciting. I doubt that they would have fewer such EPU's ( episodes of porn utilization), but it might diminish the length of their episodes slightly, due to boredom and fewer available porn modules.

[Universe Prince]

I could just as easily have said "People will buy drugs too."  My point is that people always argue that making a law against something will not stop the practice.  I say that is a deflection.  Banning abortion will not stop abortions from occurring.  Banning rape, robbery and murder will not stop those things either.  But they will, in fact, drastically reduce the incidence of such behaviors.  Some people, of course, will not obey the law, but most will.  Some will obey the law out of a sense of morality and decency.  For them, laws might not even be necessary.  But others will obey the law out of a fear of consequence, and might well indulge in unacceptable behaviors if there were no consequence.

If the goal of law is to make people obey, to control people's behavior, I guess you have a point. Personally, I don't believe that is, or at least should not be, the goal of law. The goal of law should be the protection of individual rights. Banning pornography (and drugs for that matter) doesn't really protect anyone's rights.

Arguing against laws because they will not stop a practice is, when logically considered, arguing against any laws, and perhaps in fact arguing against any morality at all.

Um, no. No one here is arguing against all laws because they will not stop a practice. Banning pornography from the PX will not stop soldiers from going elsewhere to find some. Banning drugs has not, as best I can tell, done much to reduce the number of people willing and able to find drugs for use. Prohibition, the Prohibition, did, in practical effect, almost nothing to stop people from getting their hands on alcoholic drinks. This is an excellent object lesson for what happens when people try to use laws to ban substances or things. Eventually Prohibition was repealed (not out of any sense of failure or relenting on the part of government, but basically because the government wanted the tax revenue) and now selling, buying and possessing alcoholic beverages is legal. Oddly enough, the U.S. has not become a nation of alcoholic sots, or a wasteland of anarchy. Some folks still object to alcohol on moral grounds, and no one stops them. So no, arguing against a law or a ban because it won't stop people is not arguing against having any laws or against morality.

And I would also argue that just because a law might attempt to impose a moral on society does not mean that passing the law or having the law is itself moral. It might in fact be precisely un-moral or, if you will, anti-moral.

[kimba1]

I think this will plant a seed of doubt to our brave soldier that america is worthy of protection
banning porn will not encourage them to fight for our country.
banning porn is definately not a morale booster.
I`m not saying porn should be encouraged in the military,but at this moment in time this ban is not in the least helpful .
this situation is very poorly thought out
possibly harmful

[Xavier_Onassis]

So far as I know, this is just a proposal, and nothing has been banned.

I really doubt that it will be.

But if it were banned, it would not change behavior even a bit.

If the Army were to punish soldiers for using porn in their spare time by assigning KP duty, forced marches and the like, it might reduce behavior, but at the cost of morale.

How does the slogan go... "The floggings will continue until morale improves"?

[Stray Pooch]

If the goal of law is to make people obey, to control people's behavior, I guess you have a point. Personally, I don't believe that is, or at least should not be, the goal of law. The goal of law should be the protection of individual rights. Banning pornography (and drugs for that matter) doesn't really protect anyone's rights.

Well, that's a matter of perspective.  In fact, both pornography and drugs often do effect the rights of others.  Reading a dirty book or dropping acid in itself does not violate anyone's rights.  But producing the pornography often does.  We all disagree with the sexual exploitation of children, of course, and child porn is illegal.  But even adult porn often involves exploitation and abuse of women.  Among the many examples of this are Linda Marchand's book "Ordeal" on the making of "Deep Throat" and her other porn.  (Linda was better known as Linda Lovelace.)  In it (or perhaps her other book, the title of which escapes me) she states that anyone who watches "Deep Throat" is watching her get raped.  Its not an isolated incident.  Those who abuse drugs often engage in dangerous or even intentionally violent behaviors while under the influence.  There is also an element of criminal activity in the drug trade that could well be reduced or eliminated if we legalized drugs, but things like DWI and other irresponsible and potentially dangerous behaviors would not decrease and in fact would likely increase. 

But more importantly, not all of the evils of porn (or drugs) are measurable.  The destruction caused by these two evils happens at levels where legality may not be an issue, but the devastation is just as real.  Families and lifes are destroyed, people lose their lives, and innocence can be lost.  Technically, many of these things do not involve an actual violation of anyone's rights.  A wife does not have the right to have a husband who can hold a job.  A child has no constitutional right to go through childhood without stumbling on to bondage pictures in her parent's closet.  Families do not have a right to keep mother from spending the rent check on cocaine.  I don't believe that law only exists to control behaviors, or only to protect rights.   I believe it is a bit of both, with other important social issues as well. 

But we are talking about the military in this particular example.  Military law is MUCH more concerned with controlling behavior because of the nature of the job.  Moral issues are important to military members because of the great responsibilites associated with the job and because of the traditions that the military has.  Honor is important to us, and sometimes that means following a code of behavior that puts a different standard on us than on society at large.  Sometimes that is for very real reasons of military expediency and sometimes it is just for the sake of honor and tradition.   

Um, no. No one here is arguing against all laws because they will not stop a practice. Banning pornography from the PX will not stop soldiers from going elsewhere to find some. Banning drugs has not, as best I can tell, done much to reduce the number of people willing and able to find drugs for use. Prohibition, the Prohibition, did, in practical effect, almost nothing to stop people from getting their hands on alcoholic drinks. This is an excellent object lesson for what happens when people try to use laws to ban substances or things. Eventually Prohibition was repealed (not out of any sense of failure or relenting on the part of government, but basically because the government wanted the tax revenue) and now selling, buying and possessing alcoholic beverages is legal. Oddly enough, the U.S. has not become a nation of alcoholic sots, or a wasteland of anarchy. Some folks still object to alcohol on moral grounds, and no one stops them. So no, arguing against a law or a ban because it won't stop people is not arguing against having any laws or against morality.

Not directly, and I'm not saying that.  I am talking about the silly nature of the argument. Arguing that one law should not be on the books because it will not stop one behavior but another should be on the books even though it ALSO doesn't stop the targetted behavior is illogical.  It is one of the many arguments I see made that sound real good until you think about them for a second or two.  Mind you, I am not saying that someone who opposes banning porn condones murder (to take it to the extreme) nor am I saying that someone who opposes a ban on porn opposes laws or morality.  I am saying that the argument that a law should be opposed on the grounds of ineffectiveness is specious.  I can't think of any intelligent person (or even a pretty stupid one) who would suggest that laws against bank robbery, rape or murder should be repealed because people do those sorts of things constantly anyway.  But those same intelligent people will argue that laws against drug abuse should be repealled because "it doesn't stop anyone."  That's simply obtuse.  There are excellent arguments for why bans on drugs, porn or other moral issues should be retained or repealed.  "They don't work" isn't one of them.  If we repeal laws because "they don't work" then we should repeal ALL laws, because none of them work.  You can disprove that simply by giving any example of a law which always works.  (If you say "gravity" I will cry like a little girl - and Ami will chime in with something about quantum physics to make me cry more.)   

And I would also argue that just because a law might attempt to impose a moral on society does not mean that passing the law or having the law is itself moral. It might in fact be precisely un-moral or, if you will, anti-moral.

Now that I agree with.  An easy example of that would be making laws to impose the "moral" idea that blacks and whites shouldn't mix.  Imposing the moral that people shouldn't be violent so guns should be banned is another one.  Those ideals, of course, are silly or at least debatable because of the moral issue itself.  All moral values are debatable.  But even if we all generally agree that, say, saying bad things about someone else is immoral, it would be far more immoral to pass legislation that makes it illegal to do so.  That's one reason I oppose Hate Crimes legislation even though I completely support the moral value that those things most of would agree are hate crimes are wrong.

Gotta stop.   I went to Busch Gardens yesterday and my head is still spinning from the Alpengeist. 

[Universe Prince]

Well, that's a matter of perspective.

Perhaps, but I'll let that go for now. We can debate whether or not law should attempt to control behavior another time. (Which might be fun, I'm just not prepared do get into that at the moment.)

But we are talking about the military in this particular example.  Military law is MUCH more concerned with controlling behavior because of the nature of the job.  Moral issues are important to military members because of the great responsibilites associated with the job and because of the traditions that the military has.  Honor is important to us, and sometimes that means following a code of behavior that puts a different standard on us than on society at large.  Sometimes that is for very real reasons of military expediency and sometimes it is just for the sake of honor and tradition.

Believe me, I understand that. Which is why I said the goal of setting a standard would be better met by banning pornography from the base. I don't advocate that, but I could understand it. Trying to ban it from the PX seems like an exercise in futility.

Not directly, and I'm not saying that.  I am talking about the silly nature of the argument. Arguing that one law should not be on the books because it will not stop one behavior but another should be on the books even though it ALSO doesn't stop the targetted behavior is illogical.

I would agree if I thought that law should have the goal of controlling behavior. But I don't. Having a law that has as its goal the control of behavior when the goal of law, in a general sense rather than a specific law, should be the protection of rights, and I'm speaking from my perspective, is what is illogical. And that is made doubly true if the specific law in question does not in fact result in the behavioral control it is intended to create.

I can't think of any intelligent person (or even a pretty stupid one) who would suggest that laws against bank robbery, rape or murder should be repealed because people do those sorts of things constantly anyway.

Indeed. But then I would argue that such things are and should be against the law not because we have any expectation that the law is going to prevent these crimes but because these actions are violations of basic individual rights.

But those same intelligent people will argue that laws against drug abuse should be repealled because "it doesn't stop anyone."  That's simply obtuse.

I don't agree. The point of anti-drug laws is to control people's behavior, specifically to stop individuals from engaging in specific behavior, rather than the protection of individual rights. So I would say the argument that the laws don't actually stop anyone is a valid point. The law itself may be inefficient and a wholly impractical way of addressing the issue of drugs in our society. As the man said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Yes, I know some might argue that anti-drug laws keep drug abuse from being a rampant problem in our society, but again, I point to Prohibition. It was repealed, and the U.S. has not become a nation of sots. Nor was it before Prohibition. Before we had all these drug laws, the U.S. was not a nation of abusive druggies. There is little reason to believe we would become so if the drug laws were repealed.

You can disprove that simply by giving any example of a law which always works.  (If you say "gravity" I will cry like a little girl - and Ami will chime in with something about quantum physics to make me cry more.)

His fingers steepled, and a smug smirk on his face, he said in reply, "Excellent."

[Xavier_Onassis]

Among the many examples of this are Linda Marchand's book "Ordeal" on the making of "Deep Throat" and her other porn.  (Linda was better known as Linda Lovelace.)  In it (or perhaps her other book, the title of which escapes me) she states that anyone who watches "Deep Throat" is watching her get raped.
==========================================================


So one should not watch "Deep Throat", because every time someone watches it, she gets raped again? I suggest that she is entirely unaware when someone watches it. I always believed that she voluntarily offered to make her porn flicks, and was paid to make them. Could this be incorrect? Was she abducted and forceably raped in front of the cameras?

The original topic was whether Playboy should be sold on Army bases. I think that this would be a dumb idea. Do you?

Do you think that Playboy, Penthouse or even Hustler photography sessions are physically or emotionally damaging to women?

[Amianthus]

I always believed that she voluntarily offered to make her porn flicks, and was paid to make them. Could this be incorrect? Was she abducted and forceably raped in front of the cameras?

Well, her husband at the time was apparently violent with her (as was her subsequent husband). However, she wrote two previous biographies that were "pro-porn" before she wrote her "anti-porn" biography. Apparently she has a loose association with the truth, having been publicly caught in lies several times, and told whichever story would profit her at the time.

[kimba1]

Do you think that Playboy, Penthouse or even Hustler photography sessions are physically or emotionally damaging to women?

that`s sort of a yes and no question.

if the girl is truely willing to pose,I see no problem .
but if she was forced ,than i have a problem
playboy has a long line of women willing ,so not much of a issue
penthouse is run now by ex-playboy staffers so still ok
hustler is iffy ,since the company is actually quite strict in following the laws ,so it`s not very probable.
but all the other magazine is a crap shoot if the lady will be forced to pose