Asshole Congressman tries to prevent soldiers from buying porn

Ikohn4ever

CAGiversary!
Feedback
5 (100%)
Military's porn ban questioned

By Peter Eisler, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Ten years after Congress banned sales of sexually explicit material on military bases, the Pentagon is under fire for continuing to sell adult fare, such as Penthouse and Playmates In Bed, that it doesn't consider explicit enough to pull from its stores.

Dozens of religious and anti-pornography groups have complained to Congress and Defense Secretary Robert Gates that a Pentagon board set up to review magazines and films is allowing sales of material that Congress intended to ban.

"They're saying 'we're not selling stuff that's sexually explicit' … and we say it's pornography," says Donald Wildmon, head of the American Family Association, a Christian anti-pornography group. A letter-writing campaign launched Friday by opponents of the policy aims to convince Congress to "get the Pentagon to obey the law," he adds.

ON DEADLINE: Dept. of Defense responds

In an Aug. 15 letter to the groups, Leslye Arsht, a deputy undersecretary of Defense, said the Pentagon's Resale Activities Board of Review uses appropriate guidelines to review material for sale.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Congress | Pentagon | Military | Defense Secretary | Penthouse

This year, the board reviewed Penthouse and several Playboy publications and determined that "based solely on the totality of each magazine's content, they were not sexually explicit," Arsht wrote. However, the board did decide to bar the sale of several videos found by the anti-pornography groups at military stores, including Girls Night In and Wet.

The Military Honor and Decency Act of 1996 bars stores on military bases from selling "sexually explicit material." It defines that as film or printed matter "the dominant theme of which depicts or describes nudity" or sexual activities "in a lascivious way."

Challenged as a First Amendment violation, the law was upheld by a U.S. appeals court in 2002.

"The (Pentagon's) lawyers … determined that for a magazine to be found lewd and lascivious, a certain percentage of the content would have to fall under that category," says Steve Sellman, a retired Pentagon official who chaired the resale board in the late 1990s. "We looked to see how much of (a magazine) was articles or advertising that had no sexual content."

About 67% of the 473 "titles" reviewed have been barred, the Pentagon says.

Defense officials "don't want to take porn away from soldiers," says Patrick Trueman, a former federal prosecutor who now works with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group. "They say, 'well, 40% of this magazine is sexually explicit pictures, but 60% is writing or advertising, so the totality is not sexually explicit.' That's ridiculous."

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., who sponsored the law, says the military is skirting Congress' intent. He notes the material also could contribute to a hostile environment for female military personnel. "If soldiers want to read that stuff, they can walk down the street and buy it somewhere else," Bartlett says. "I don't want (the military) to help."

Nadine Strossen, a New York Law School professor who heads the American Civil Liberties Union, says the law effectively censors what troops get to read in remote areas or combat zones. "We're asking these people to risk their lives to defend our Constitution's principles … and they're being denied their own First Amendment rights to choose what they read," she said.




I know its on base, but we got so many other fooking problems with the military and these idiots in washington fight over nothing.


This douche
bartlettan3.jpg
needs to get a life
 
As a staunch porn supporter and peruser, this story really pisses me off. It sort of reminds me of that scene in that Vietnam movie

"This is my rifle, this is my gun, this is for fighting, this is for fun."
 
[quote name='jaykrue']*sigh* these politicians are obviously against sex and free enterprise.[/QUOTE]
Pimpin' ain't easy, eh? ;)
 
"If soldiers want to read that stuff, they can walk down the street and buy it somewhere else," Bartlett says. "I don't want (the military) to help."

Oh yeah, I'm sure you're practically tripping over it in a sexually liberal paradise like Iraq.

I can just see it now: "Hey Ace, check out the ankles on this one!"
 
So let me get this straight:

1. You can't masturbate.
2. You can't be gay.
3. You can't be sexually permisicuous.

and to top it all off...

4. You have to go to a foreign land and get your head shot off by other sexually oppressed people.

Oh, and you were sent there by the asshole who won't let you jack it in the first place. I think when you look at the big picture, all of these problems are arising from people telling other people how to use what God gave them.

Seriously, these guys need to stop telling us what the fuck to do. Especially the ones who are looking for cock in a bathroom stall.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Why do the Republicans hate the troops?[/quote]
Come on myke let's be fair to the Republicans about this. They don't hate all the troops; they only hate the ones that turn them on.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']only hate the ones that turn them on.[/QUOTE]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsuLgUmyOjo[/media]
 
[quote name='HotShotX']So let me get this straight:

1. You can't masturbate.
2. You can't be gay.
3. You can't be sexually permisicuous.

and to top it all off...

4. You have to go to a foreign land and get your head shot off by other sexually oppressed people.

Oh, and you were sent there by the asshole who won't let you jack it in the first place. I think when you look at the big picture, all of these problems are arising from people telling other people how to use what God gave them.

Seriously, these guys need to stop telling us what the fuck to do. Especially the ones who are looking for cock in a bathroom stall.

~HotShotX[/quote]

You posted pretty much everything I was going to say, only better.
 
You would definitely have sex with Hillary Clinton. It's not even that you find her that attractive, its just sort of a novelty fuck. You'd just like to be able to say you did it, maybe get some juice on your blue suit or something to prove it.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']You would definitely have sex with Hillary Clinton. It's not even that you find her that attractive, its just sort of a novelty fuck. You'd just like to be able to say you did it, maybe get some juice on your blue suit or something to prove it.[/QUOTE]

'the fuck?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']'the fuck?[/quote]

Extremely, extremely bored at work. TGIF and ya just gotta love how courts are closed on monday even though Vets day is technically on Sunday.

BTW that stuff about our next president is true. Back on topic [porn] I wonder as a woman if she is the Catherine McKinnon type or the liberal democratic type.
 
I can see the headline 10 to 20 years from now:

Asshole Congressman tries to prevent soldiers from thinking about porn

Brain Scanners... closer to reality than you might expect.
 
Thinking about porn would mean that you are a sex addict, as you are no longer thinking about mere sexual intercourse -- but the catalyst of porn, itself.

Therefore, I am addicted to porn.

:D
 
[quote name='level1online']I can see the headline 10 to 20 years from now:

Asshole Congressman tries to prevent soldiers from thinking about porn

Brain Scanners... closer to reality than you might expect.[/QUOTE]If it were anyone else, I'd think they're joking, but you're serious, aren't you?
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']If it were anyone else, I'd think they're joking, but you're serious, aren't you?[/quote]

well... kinda

after typing in "brain scan read thoughts" on yahoo & google, this is a sample of what i found.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15744871&ft=1&f=1001

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/feb/09/neuroscience.ethicsofscience

edit: kinda makes you wonder, if technology like this is available, why hasn't it been brought up in the "Torture" thread as an alternative form of "Enhanced Interogation"....?
 
[quote name='level1online']well... kinda

after typing in "brain scan read thoughts" on yahoo & google, this is a sample of what i found.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15744871&ft=1&f=1001

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/feb/09/neuroscience.ethicsofscience

edit: kinda makes you wonder, if technology like this is available, why hasn't it been brought up in the "Torture" thread as an alternative form of "Enhanced Interogation"....?[/quote]

Yes, now that you can scan for some immediate intentions and a more accurate lie detecting system all the government has to do is force everyone to lie in fMRI machines...
 
[quote name='Pookymeister']youd think Christian groups might be more against killing than porn[/QUOTE]

You'd also think people would be more concerned with violence than sex. Go figure.
 
Last two posts have it nailed.

No pun intended.

After all, the Ten Commandments say, "Thou Shalt Not Kill", not "Though Shalt Not get a Subscription to Bang Bros."
 
[quote name='camoor']Oh yeah, I'm sure you're practically tripping over it in a sexually liberal paradise like Iraq.

I can just see it now: "Hey Ace, check out the ankles on this one!"[/QUOTE]

No porn at all is allowed in Iraq due to a general order. Cultural sympathy or whatnot
 
[quote name='elprincipe']You'd also think people would be more concerned with violence than sex. Go figure.[/QUOTE]

Heck I think some even rate bad language over violence. Pretty backwards way of thinking IMO.
 
[quote name='jlarlee']Heck I think some even rate bad language over violence. Pretty backwards way of thinking IMO.[/QUOTE]

There was a great episode of "South Park" about this.
 
[quote name='jlarlee']Heck I think some even rate bad language over violence. Pretty backwards way of thinking IMO.[/quote]

Wait a minute.

Christians. Backwards-thinking.

Heavens no! They just pardoned Galileo - I'd say that's pretty progressive of them wouldn't you?
 
[quote name='camoor']Wait a minute.

Christians. Backwards-thinking.

Heavens no! They just pardoned Galileo - I'd say that's pretty progressive of them wouldn't you?[/quote]

Dude that was like four hundred years ago.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Dude that was like four hundred years ago.[/quote]

Vatican admits Galileo was right
07 November 1992
In 1633, the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church forced Galileo Galilei, one of the founders of modern science, to recant his theory that the Earth moves around the Sun. Under threat of torture, Galileo - seen above facing his inquisitors - recanted. But as he left the courtroom, he is said to have muttered, 'all the same, it moves'.

Last week, 359 years later, the Church finally agreed. At a ceremony in Rome, before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II officially declared that Galileo was right. The formal rehabilitation was based on the findings of a committee of the Academy the Pope set up in 1979, soon after taking office. The committee decided the Inquisition had acted in good faith, but was wrong.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13618460.600-vatican-admits-galileo-was-right-.html
 
I was talking about the incident, not the pardon; 359 is "like four hundred" but I can see how it could be interpreted that I was talking about the pardon.

This story couldnt help but remind me of the rampant use of heroine, marijuana and LSD in Viet Nam. Now they can't have porn.
 
bread's done
Back
Top