By Robert L. Maginnis, Family Research Council
March 1996 – In the wake of the rape of a 12-year-old girl in Okinawa by a U.S. sailor and two Marines, and the groping of a female sailor by a drunken chief petty officer on a commercial flight, Adm. Mike Boorda, the chief of naval operations, has called for a day of introspection for service men and women to consider the issue of sexual harassment.
Whether “introspection” can help is anyone’s guess, but if our nation’s military leaders are really serious about combating improper sexual activity by service personnel, they will move quickly to stop the sale of sexually explicit materials on military bases.
Believe it or not, the federal government is the country’s largest distributor of pornographic materials. By selling sex magazines to U.S. armed forces through the military exchange system, the government spreads smut tax free and at discount prices.
Navy regulations already prohibit the sale of materials that “inspire or encourage lust, particularly in the young, by exploiting indecent or undue exposure, exaggerating sexual characteristics of male or female figures, or by showing suggestive obvious passionate actions or poses.”
The Navy’s hesitancy to dump this trash may be because commanders lack the courage to enforce the regulations for fear of First Amendment challenges. But at least one ship commander did the right thing.
The captain of the carrier America received a complaint about a magazine sold in his ship’s store. The April, 1984, issue of Hustler magazine included graphic pictures of a woman engaged in a sex act with a crucifix. The ship’s supply officer was ordered to deep-six the magazine.
Pornographic material, like alcohol, is a powerful stimulant. Beginning with “soft” pornography sold in Navy stores, the desire for sexually explicit material grows to require more explicit images in order to reach the previous level of sexual arousal. Gradually, the addict becomes desensitized even to the more explicit material and may act out sexual fantasies inspired by the material. Such activities may include promiscuity, exhibitionism, group sex, voyeurism, sex with children, rape, sadism or homosexuality.
Army exchanges sell this trash, too. Hustler, one of the more perverse of the “mainstream” magazines, is sold openly at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Submarines at Groton, Connecticut, can also choose from a wide selection of pornography. Even the Pentagon Book Store sells nine “soft-porn” magazines and two sexually explicit homosexual magazines, the latter belying Department of Defense commitment to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Under current policy, exchange managers select magazines based on sales volume, customer preferences, and, in the case of pornographic material, whether it fits the definition of obscenity outlined in the 1973 Supreme Court case Miller v. California.
The Miller criteria were written to protect freedom of speech and expression but there are kinds not protected by the Constitution. These include, among others, slander, libel, perjury, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, and child pornography.
Navy regulations allow commanders to ban materials that could incite sexual harassment in the workplace. The Navy says the workplace is “an expansive term for military members and may include conduct on or off duty, 24 hours a day.”
Marine commanders at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, applied this concept of “off duty” to a local business. Eugene’s Arcade was placed off limits to military personnel. The shop owner filed a suit alleging violation of his rights of free speech. But federal judge W. Earl Britt dismissed it, concluding “A military commander has an overriding duty to safeguard the morals, welfare and discipline of his men.”
A 1992 Navy memo states: “A commanding officer has broad responsibility to ensure the effective and efficient operation of his/her command. . . [and] has authority to regulate or ban activities that may be detrimental . . . to good order, discipline, and morale among command personnel.”
It is clear that commanding officers may restrict base exchanges from selling illicit materials. In a 1992 letter, the Navy Exchange commander wrote: “I believe strongly that our Navy . . . should establish a Navy-wide policy which states that material inconsistent with its core values, which is demeaning to men or women of our Navy and which is contrary to good order and discipline, will not be sold in exchanges.”
Several years ago, Americans learned that topless and bottomless “performers,” male and female, were appearing under military auspices at U.S. military bases in the Pacific. When these incidents were publicized, the Navy banned the sex shows.
It is clear the Navy understands the detrimental effect of pornographic materials and explicit sex-related entertainment. It is also clear that policies are in place to limit the availability of such material or shows. What defies logic is that the services remain in the porn business. Why?
Given the rise in sexual assaults and the growing attention devoted to sexual harassment, the Navy must stop the sale of pornography through military installations. Unscrupulous businessmen are willing to sell the trash, but must taxpayer-funded stores peddle depraved material at reduced rates and tax free to servicemen worldwide?
Bill Clinton has unilateral authority to remove pornographic material from military stores. His executive order could prohibit such sales in base exchanges all over the world. Such an order would surely be upheld in the courts, especially if based on long-respected claims of military deference. We are waiting, Mr. President. 
