THE SMUT BAN

In 1996, Congress passed the Military Honor and Decency Act requiring military exchange stores to remove "sexually explicit" publications from their inventory. A Department of Defense review board was appointed to review this issue and as of 30 Sep 98, the board completed its initial review. To date, the board has identified over 200 magazines which are now banned from military exchanges.

One of the biggest controversies has been over the exclusion of "Playgirl," a female-oriented publication, and the allowance of "Playboy," a male-oriented publication.

In America, a private business has the right to sell anything it wants to, as long as it's not illegal, like child pornography or cocaine. A private business also has the right to not sell anything it does not want to sell. If I own a flower shop and I don't want to sell roses, that's my choice. May not be a good business decision, but it's my decision.

So the question is, is AAFES a private business? The court decided that DOD has the right to decide what to sell and what not to sell. So, the court has given DOD the right to pick and choose what they will sell, regardless if funding comes from taxes or sales.

The right to free press is not the right to force businesses to carry said press. Would you require every store that sells press (books and magazines) to carry pornographic magazines? That does not sound like a democracy to me. Should a Christian bookstore be forced to carry pornographic magazines, just because they sell a form of press?

Nowhere is it said that one is not allowed to make, distribute, or purchase pornography. Nowhere has the First amendment been violated. You can spend your entire paycheck on porn if you so choose. You can make a porno video of yourself and sell it, provided you have a business license. It was merely stated that businesses have the right to decide if they want to sell it or not.

As far as I know, the military does not allow offensive material to be distributed on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, etc. And, as far as I know, there aren't any magazines or material that promotes the degradation of someone's race, color, or religion. So why are there magazines still being sold in military establishments that promote the degradation of my sex? I don't think individuals or the military would stand for magazines that promoted the degredation of various religions or races to ever be sold in BX's or PX's even if they were out of sight. So why does the military still allow this discrimination?

This is from an old soldier. I served from 1959 to 1979.

The PX/BX for the most part is a family service center. The military families go there with their children, also with PX's/BX's being in Moslem countries now it presents additional problems.

We cannot please all people as there are both males and females that desire it to be sold in the BX's/PX's, there are males and females that desire that it not be sold in the BX's/PX's, there are females that find it degrading to females, there are females that do not find it degrading to females and there are various males and females that find it offensive due to their religion. We won't even get into the Gay issue.

What is contained in them is nothing that consenting adults don't do every day. Some males and females do it willingly and some males and females will never do it willingly.

So the bottom line is this, do not sell it in the PX's/BX's. If it is desired by an individual and it is permitted to be sent to their mailing address (Command permission and no country prohibitions where the servicemember is station) then the person can subscribe to it.

Freedom is in the eye of the beholder, what the laws of that country allows. It is not the same to all, one size does not fit all, it is ever changing as to what society permits. There are more important issues to fight and bicker over than this.

It's entirely hypocritical for the military to maintain a firm stance on the importance of treating everyone fairly and then sell an abundance of pornographic magazines that degrade women. It is even worse when there's an over abundance of smut and hardly any news magazines. If any must be sold at all there should be a hefty tax of at least $5 on each magazine which should be given to the local battered women's shelter.

And while we're at it, an equally hefty tax on alcohol and cigarettes should be instituted, which should be given to a local health association.

I believe if the Air Force is against Sexual Harassment, they should not sell these magazines on an AF Installation. In other words they're promoting this junk to the military and then at the same time telling everyone, we will not tolerate it. Mixed Signals. - Active Duty SSgt (Female)

This is for everyone who still thinks that the Constitution protects pornography. I will not go into an argument about the framers and their intentions, because I am sure you have already found a way to ignore that. Rather, I will tell you what is important to me. To me, the right to exercise one's own religion and not one sanctioned by Congress, the right to speak out when one thinks that the government is wrong, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to a fair trial and due process of law are the rights that I hold dear. To me, these are the

rights that are vital to our country and that set us apart from the rest of the world. To me, these are the rights for which my fellow servicemen and servicewomen have fought and died to protect. Do not tell me that I am fighting for your privilege to look at naked women (and men). That nauseates me.

This is for everyone who thinks that the DoD's choice not to sell a certain product indicates discrimination against its potential buyers. Now that you mention it, last time I was in the NEX, I noticed a lot more women's fashion magazines than men's. Why? Am I being discriminated against? Are they oppressing the 1st amendment rights of GQ? No.....They are selling what people buy. There are a lot of things that military exchanges do not sell, for a lot of different reasons, and they have been granted that prerogative.

This is for everyone who thinks that the preceding paragraph is condoning the sale of Playboy. This may seem off the subject, but if you'll notice, in the first paragraph, I used the word "one" when discussing the right to protest. I started to write "I," but then realized that this right does not apply to me. You see, as a member of

the military, I am different. I am held to a higher standard than civilians. When I signed the enlistment papers, I gave up many rights that civilians enjoy, because I represent the country: abroad through strategic deterrence and force, and, in this case, at home through public relations. Military exchanges, in what they sell, also represent the military. For example, they do not sell (as far as I have seen) Big Johnson t-shirts, because that is not the image we want to create for ourselves.

I think that a ban on any "adult" magazine, either for male or female, is wrong. Granted certain "safeguards" ( out of site of children & concealed covers ) are necessary but to ban such magazines anywhere is not right. We as adults, either enlisted or civilian, have the right to decide for ourselves if we want to purchase such periodicals. If we can vote on who can run this country then we can certainly vote on what we want to read.

First I must say that it is refreshing that you have a forum such as this to voice ones opinion on. As a retired CSM of some years I have seen the Army move in many direction at the prodding of anyone with a cause. These changes have not always been thought out for the best.

Censorship!! Where does it stop? In Panama in the late 70's AFN TV would always say that the satellite was oscillating in space each night during the evening news from the States. We knew it was a lie but what could we do. The Canal Treaty was on the floor of the house and we were being kept in the dark. Only after one of the women of our community had the guts to write her congressman was it stopped.

I think it is sexist that you can go down to your local PX/BX/NX and find that they have Playboy on the shelf and not Playgirl. Can someone PLEASE tell me what is so wrong with Playgirl? Granted, I give Playboy credit for the way they photograph the women. I think they are one of the most tasteful "male" magazines out there. If you notice most of the other ones have pictures of women in rude, crude, and sociably unacceptable positions; whereas I feel Playboy has tasteful pictures of women. Their photos' I feel are taken as an art to show the beauty of the human body (male or female). They aren't taken in a way that give men their idea of a sexual fantasy. If anyone has ever looked at a Playgirl you don't see any thing really distasteful as far as photos go. You don't see pictures of men with other men in "nasty" poses. If they are going to ban all pornography from the PX then they need to add Playboy to the list or reevaluate they selection of magazines that they consider pornographic. I would really like to know how many women were on this so called committee that decided what's appropriate and what isn't appropriate?

First, I must say that I am disgusted with the ban of "pornography" in exchanges. After thinking about the matter, I've come to this conclusion: In the U.S., the ban is not such a big issue to people, because anybody can go off-post and buy whatever one wants. But, if you're stationed overseas, where American publications are only available through AAFES, there's a problem. I suspect that a lot of people who want the magazines on a regular basis already had a subscription (Receive the stuff through the Army Postal Service, perfectly Legal). I also suspect that a lot of people who before only bought those magazines occasionally have subscribed to them now. I'll bet the publishers are thrilled!

I have served in the Military and I am currently in the Reserves. I don't find anything wrong with the PX selling magazines that are intended for adult male or female viewing, as long as they are out of sight of young children.

Yes, we females have fought and are still fighting to show that we are not merely sex objects but shouldn't we be putting our devotion into something more worthwhile. We are showing everyone that we are not comfortable with our sexuality as women, I have not heard of any man arguing over the fact that females have a magazine showing males who are naked. I find it ironic that European countries don't have the sexist problems that exist here, maybe its because they all are comfortable with who they are.

To the person who wrote, "Has anybody read through the Constitution lately?" Have you? I have, and I can tell you there are alot of things that are not specifically covered in the constitution that play a large role in our lives as Americans. I can tell you, however, that it is freedom of speech that as American Citizens, be it military or not, we can "be concerned" and voice our opinion, and that includes opinions about naked people we may never know. I feel you have no right to ask where my priorities are...if it wasn't for people making things their priority we'd never see change in this great nation. I respect your opinion that you think the troops have a lot more to worry about, so please respect my (and many others) opinion that the smut ban is sexist, discriminatory, and childish censorship.

OK.....I am a female who has been in the Marine Corps for a little over 2 years. I believe that military exchanges should not ban anything. I certainly do not think they should only ban ones aimed at females. I personally am not interested in it, but I am sure there are female military members who are. Many people regardless of sex, in the service, rely on the exchange as their main place to purchase things. They are allowed to serve, possibly be called to war, die next week, but they cannot buy what interests them in a store meant to provide for them? On the other hand, noone I have seen has took into the account of little kids walking around with their parents. Simple, put the magazines behind the counter, or in an area restricted to adults, on some top shelf........

Pornography is not covered in our freedom of speech, along with vulgarity, obscenity and slander. Besides, shouldn't those enlisted be more concerned about their job on hand instead of a magazine full of naked people they will never know? Where are their priorities? This shouldn't even be an issue. I think our troops have a lot more to worry about.

I am not a female, but instead, a male in the military (22+ yrs). The military has adopted (& rightly so, in my opinion) a strong stance against sexual harassment, hazing, etc. However, the nature of pornographic publications is in direct opposition to this stance philosophically; though it is probably not with premeditation or intent to promote harassment or demean those of the opposite sex. These publications, like it or not, are published to appeal to the more base instincts (while resisting restraint) within the human being, and, whether or not intended by the publishers, they end up contributing to behavior that is antithetical to the stance against looking on those of the opposite sex as mere play objects. There are certainly other motives on the part of those in the business, yet it is at the expense of decency more often than not. IF the military goes back to tolerating sexual harassment, THEN they should allow the sale of pornographic material; IF not, then they should not {remember: it's my opinion}. Freedom of speech is not at stake here unless it deals with censorship in all types (or categories) of places. You can bear a registered firearm on your person in a local municipality, but, unless you are directly authorized by the command for the purposes of DUTY, then bearing firearms on base is strictly verboten. Yet this is no infringement on my right as a citizen to keep & bear arms!

My opinion on the issue of pornography is that any one of legal and mature ages should be able to purchase it, if they so choose, and the only people that are exploited are those who feel that way.

If the commissary sells brand X and not brand Y, then the people who are the purchasing agents for the Shoppettes, Groceterias, BX's, PX's, etc.should be able to decide not to sell Magazine X .

This is blatant sexism and a perfect example of the antiquated ideas that the military still holds on to regarding women. I wonder if everyone will be 'comfy' if the women just start looking at the pictures in Playboy instead, as that is all that will be available!

I served in the USAF from 1993-1998. I am now a Political Science major at West Chester University. I read about this smut ban and find it is hard not to say "what else is new?" In this day and age one would think that we were above these sexist acts of blatant discrimination. Get together girls - WRITE YOUR CONGRESS PERSON!! We all have voices...let them be heard. That is how changes are made. So don't wait until tomorrow. Search around right now on the web, find the email address of your congress person, and start typing your opinion. If not now, when will we be equal?

I'm a retired military member and it's hard to watch basic freedoms slipping away from our young ADULTS! That's right.....Adults! Adults should have the same freedoms as any civilian! The exchanges are for military but you can't get the same items as in a civilian store....no justice! If Playboy is allowed then allow Playgirl!

I don't think the stores should sell any product that it doesn't want to. If the BX, PX, etc. does not carry brand "X", why aren't the people who would like to be able to get it at the base up in arms over the base carrying brand "X" instead of brand "Y"? I personally do not like the magazines in question, but if others want to read them, then they can go downtown to get them like I go to the neighborhood store to get brand "Y". And I do not want to continue to have to go to the magazine rack ahead of my 12 yr. old son to make sure all the mags I don't want him to see are put up because others leave them down. And, I had to tell a young airman to please stop reading Playboy at the magazine rack in the shoppette! I had to tell him twice, and he still asked "Why?". And got offended when I said I didn't appreciate him reading the mag in public, in front of my 12 yr. old boy, and 14, 13, and 12 yr. old girls. There is a time and a place for the magazines if they want them, but I don't

It should be clarified that DOD has not banned pornography. Pornography has been a subject that has been very difficult for the courts to pin down. As a judge once said "I can't define it, but I know what it is when I see it". Instead, DOD in an effort to stay away from a huge legal headache explained that certain "sexually explicit" magazines would be removed from the military exchanges/shoppettes.

whether you like it or not have just as much right to be sold as the Bible inside military exchanges. What if you wanted to buy a Bible in the exchange but a ban had been placed on them. People would be screaming. And they should!!! Our government does not have the authority to limit our free press/speech as spelled out by the constitution and the supreme court.

And by the way, let me see if I understand our country and government. They do not want our soldiers who may have to go and give their lives for their country to be able to buy "sexually explicit" material. However, based on the media, polls, and politicians now wanting to end President Clinton's ordeal, I am to understand that it is okay for the President to receive oral sex in the bathroom beside the Oval office from a woman other than his wife.

Now, understanding this was okay for the President, I would really like for someone (anyone) to tell me what is wrong with a soldier looking at pictures.

What should be obvious is that the argument that won the day cited taxpayer subsidy for the magazines which is crap. The magazines were sold for a substantial profit of over 10 million dollars a year (at AAFES) 3 million of which was turned over to MWR. The court ruling that upheld the ban did not make any judgment about pornography, only that DOD had the right to decide what it would sell and not sell.

As a female in the military I am very concerned about men being able to buy Playboy while Playgirl is banned in the exchanges. I understand that Congress mandated this law but DoD actually had a committee to decide what is pornographic.

I think that you should be able to buy Playboy, Playgirl, Penthouse, etc., in the exchanges. Isn't that what we fought all those wars for, to uphold our basic freedoms, which include the freedom of speech. We've got to stop what is happening in our country. Our rights are slowly being drained. Before you know it we will be in 1936 Germany!