With all due respect, this is Ridiculous.

With all due respect to Rep. Paul Broun, this is simply ridiculous. From a message I got this morning:

Subject: Family Fragments :: Fighting Pornography, Saving the Family: Are you subsidizing pornography?

Rep. Broun (GA-10) has submitted HR 5821 which would remove pornography from PX and BX shops on military bases. Most products at these shops are subsidized by your tax dollars.

Recent peer reviewed research shows that men who view pornography are 3 times more likely to have an affair. Our military families have a difficult enough time as it is without having to deal with the psychological effects of pornography addiction.

Help support Congressman Broun. Tell your representative to sign on as a co-sponsor of HR 5821.

Now, I’m largely a fan of Paul Broun, but this is really — for lack of a better word — dumb.

The only “pornography” permitted to be sold at military bases is Playboy magazine — hence the roaring trade in sex “literature” and video shops just outside of military base gates the country and world over.

Surely there is something better that a Constitutionally-governing Representative like Paul Broun could be focusing on than further sexually frustrating American service men and women, while attempting to hold them to a higher reading-material standard than the rest of the nation.

Further, speaking of “peer-reviewed studies,” I’d be interested in seeing one that evaluated the prevalence of print-pornography consumption vs. that of online pornography. I’m betting that the latter is far more commonly viewed, including on military bases.

Is an on-post cyberfilter going to be the next suggestion from the usually-libertarian-leaning Rep. Broun?


  1. John Konop says:

    This is a smart political move because the people who care will like it and the other people will not care. I do think it is a slippery slope via our constitution.

  2. Doug Deal says:

    It is nice for Congressman Broun to focus on such a pressing and overridingly important issue as this. Our fears of him being a bit of a zealot have been unfounded.

    Erick, I know your Red State has endorsed him, and I like many of his Constitutional stands, but it is nincompoops like Rep. Broun that harm the Republican Party nationwide. It does not matter if he is the singular voice for Constitutional issues if he makes the entire nationwide delegation into a prudish laughingstock.

  3. Doug Deal says:


    I agree that it is not a slippery slope for Constitutional issues, but it is like the Tom Foley or Senator Craig affairs. It adds to an already pervasive view of two-faced hypocrisy in the GOP.

  4. I agree with your characterization of Broun’s actions as ridiculous, but take issue with your characterization of Broun as “usually-Libertarian-leaning.”

    Reaching-out to (or, depending on your mood, pandering to) busy-bodied Christian moralist voters was part of his campaign.


    Also, he boasts on his web site that all legislation he considers is subject to a “moral” litmus test, which in his case clearly means “Christian moral” litmus test.


  5. Bill Greene says:

    Actually, it’s a smart move, politically. Fleming is trying to portray Broun as bad on the pornography issue because he voted against H.R. 3791, the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online (“SAFE”) Act, due to its blatant unconstitutionality. (Only two voted against the bill – Broun and Ron Paul.)

    This new bill nullifies Fleming’s attempts, and still abides by Broun’s emphasis on constitutionality (Congress *does* have the constitutional right to control what’s sold on bases, and the American taxpayer probably *shouldn’t* be subsidizing pornography, even if it’s “just Playboy”).

    And, of course, it’s all for the children.

  6. CHelf says:

    A DoD committee ruling on what is sold on base said that Playboy, Playgirl, and Penthouse are not pornography and as such can be sold on base. This bill would basically lower the bar and remove these three from the racks. Last year these three magazines accounted for $46.4 million in AAFES magazine sales worldwide. So basically this is all about 3 magazines and the definition of “pornography”. Does ‘reading only for the articles’ meaning anything in the rebuttal?

  7. CobbGOPer says:

    Seriously, Playboy isn’t even good porn anymore. It’s more like “People” magazine without the clothes. You get Playboy to see which Hollywood starlet is trying to revive her career this month…

  8. Romegaguy says:

    Don’t forget, life begins at ejaculation and that is why Paul “still not sworn in yet” Broun is trying to outlaw porn on military bases; to keep soldiers from masturbating and killing all of those unconceived babies. It’s all for the children!!!

  9. ACConservative says:

    Rome, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

    Bill, I know that Ron Paul and Paul Broun aren’t necessarily considered Constitutional scholars or “jurisprudes”, but I have a hard time believing that the two creepy doctors are the only ones who know the constitutionality of an issue like child porn.

    As Paul Broun would say “God doesn’t bless America, and he will continue to not bless America as long as we keep killing millions of unborn babies”

  10. joe says:

    “With all due respect, this is Ridiculous.”

    There is no respect due to somebody who proposes this. Respect must be earned.

  11. IndyInjun says:

    Yeah, Rome……. a WET dream……

    Bobby Saxon beckons.

    I am dreaming of replacing my Broun sign with a Saxon sign, after Broun dispenses with Barry Fleming.

  12. Icarus says:

    I guess if I gave up porn, I would have time to post an additional 2305 comments here…

  13. liberator says:

    This is why the Republicrats are no longer in the majority in Congress. They look like a Christian version of the Taliban with this crap!

  14. Bill Greene says:

    ACConservative, most of those who voted for HR 3791 are now admitting they never bothered to read the bill. It doesn’t matter anymore whether something is constitutional, as long as it’s “for the children.” Welcome to the new GOP.

  15. Doug Deal says:


    Read bills? There are way too many words and too few cartoons and tactile popups to keep the average Congressman’s attention.

  16. Bill Greene says:

    Doug, all the more reason to force them to pass the RTBA.


    Of course, if we force them to take the time to read the bills they’re voting on, there might be less bills. Especially if we also make them pass H.R. 1359, the “Enumerated Powers Act” — forcing them to include an explicit statement of Constitutional authority in each bill that is introduced.

    Most of these people wouldn’t know the U.S. Constitution if it bit them on the butt.

  17. modcon says:

    Those of us that have read HR 3791 know that Broun’s excuse that it would force businesses to police their customers is a flat out lie.

  18. Doug Deal says:

    It will never pass.

    Democrats will not allow it to pass because it will sacrifice some of their temporary power as the majority of pushing out last minute legislation before public outcry can be raised.

    On the other hand, Republicans will never pass when they regain the majority because it will sacrifice some of their power to push out last minute legislation before public outcry is raised.

  19. StevePerkins says:

    Reading Playboy leads to divorce? Gee… maybe Broun should leave our troops alone, and turn his attention toward blocking which magazines our state legislators read.

    Any politician who really cares about the divorce rate in the military would focus on deployments that continuously get longer, downtimes that continuously get shorter, and troops trapped past their time by the backdoor draft.

    Whether you happen to agree with this legislation or not, I think that pretty much everyone on Peach Pundit (i.e. anyone intelligent enough to operate a computer) recognizes this as cynical pandering for symbolic purposes only. The sad thing is that the people of Broun’s district aren’t that bright.

  20. ACConservative says:

    Steve, the irony of a guy on his third or fourth (I’ve lost count) marriage being worried about Playboy causing more divorces is pretty funny. Maybe Paul Broun should save his marriage and put that Playboy down.

    Modcon, Broun cooked up that excuse because he didn’t even read the bill either. In fact, I’m not quite sure he knows how to read.

  21. BubbaRich says:

    drjay, it’s not the pro-pornography lobby, it’s the PRO-DIVORCE lobby. Anybody who disagree with this proposal hates marriage and hates our troops even more.

  22. StevePerkins says:

    I think you underestimate the pro-“leave me alone” lobby, drjay. Just because you favor or oppose something in your own personal life, that doesn’t justify an “oughtta be a law!” knee jerk response.

  23. ACConservative says:

    Bubba, you also forgot that they hate babies. Don’t forget we’re talking about saving millions of innocent, living sperm here.

    Paul Broun is a true hero.

  24. Bill Simon says:

    That “innocent, living sperm” has a history of causing prostate problems. One would think a doctor like Broun would know about that.

  25. drjay says:

    recent peer reviewed research shows that men who view pornography are 3 times more likely to have an affair… our military families have a difficult enough time as it is without having to deal with the psychological effects of pornography addiction…do you people really want your tax dollars spent on “porn subsidies”

  26. Chris says:

    Doug is right Steve – your life would be much better if you just did everything we told you to do. You’re unhappy because you don’t obey.

    Freedom is Slavery
    Obedience is Happiness
    Ice Cream is Yummy.

  27. Romegaguy says:

    Recent studies show that married couples are 97% more likely to get divorced than non-married couples. Maybe Mr. Broun should also consider outlawing marriage

  28. StevePerkins says:

    Drjay — correlation does not equal causation. A rational person cannot reason that it’s less likely an adulterous man would happen to view pornography also, rather than reason that pornography “brainwashes” people and “makes” them cheat. This is the same denial of personal responsibility for which conservatives generally ridicule liberals (i.e. it’s not your fault for committing violent acts, because the video games and pro wrestling shows “condition” you to do it).

    Putting aside THAT sheer abandonment of logic for a moment, what is banning Playboy on military bases supposed to do for the divorce rate. I don’t think there’s a military base on the planet that doesn’t have a string of strip clubs and “Chester’s House of Dildos” located just outside the barbwire fence. Even with something as tame as Playboy, troops are free to subscribe to any publication they like through their AFB boxes. Supply and demand… the market will provide what people want whether you like it or not. It’s just a question of how silly do you want to look trying to stand in the way.

  29. drjay says:

    read the second paragraph of the article outlined in gray then read my 3:18 post again–i am just stating the facts as presented…

  30. StevePerkins says:

    1) Peer-reviewed evidence of “correlation” does not equal peer-reviewed evidence of “causation”. If looking at the occasional boobie photo could render an otherwise well-adjusted individual psychologically incapable of keeping it in his pants, then neither I nor any other man I know would still be married.

    2) If you honestly consider Playboy of all things to be “pornography”, then we’re probably too far apart to even converse. Playboy has been losing market share for years to magazines like Maxim for one simple reason… “artistic” photos of nude women in “tasteful” poses just isn’t as hot as skanks posing spread-eagle in a thong. Playboy simply ain’t porn, hasn’t been for years, and in no event is more risque than the million other entertain options available.

    3) Since when does the entire military consist of middle-aged married guys? Most friends I had who signed up were 18-year old kids looking for adventure (i.e. travel the world, shoot guns, and get laid a lot). I mean, let’s get real… the only reason we’re talking about the military here is because it’s the only “captive audience” that the government has a high level of control over.

  31. Icarus says:

    “Was Mr. Broun’s Playboy reading the cause of his divorces?”

    Perhaps they were Mrs. Brown’s?

  32. Doug Deal says:

    Dear Penthouse Adviser,

    I can’t believe that I am writting you about this, but I never thought that something like this would ever happen to me…

    Oops, wrong forum.

  33. Holly says:

    Jeff, please pay closer attention to the legislation and voting record. The libertarian lean left ages ago.

  34. modcon says:

    …do you people really want your tax dollars spent on “porn subsidies”

    This has been stated numerous times since Broun introduced this ridiculous legislation. The AAFES is not tax payer subsidized. In fact the proceeds from the Playboy sales (and all other sales) go to support other morale boosting recreational programs for military and their families.
    AAFES Fact Sheet

  35. Icarus says:

    Alrighty then,

    If you buy Playboy at the PX, it’s now officially for the children.

    Paul Broun is against the children.

    It’s settled.

  36. liberator says:

    There are no studies showing any connection between porn and rape. However maybe Broun should ban Catholicism on base since it leads some sexually repressed priests to molest children.

  37. Bill Greene says:

    It will never pass.

    Democrats will not allow it to pass because it will sacrifice some of their temporary power as the majority of pushing out last minute legislation before public outcry can be raised.

    On the other hand, Republicans will never pass when they regain the majority because it will sacrifice some of their power to push out last minute legislation before public outcry is raised.

    Doug, exactly. This is not the Republican Party I used to know. I guess I’m just naive, but I actually believed all that stuff about the GOP being the party of lower taxes and less government.

    I just finished watching McCain giving his “important” speech, and am about to watch Obama give his “important” speech. Or, wait, was it the other way around? All the talk about the great stuff government needs to do for everyone, I get confused.

Comments are closed.