U.S. Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) has decided to focus his efforts on an important issue plaguing the U.S. military: porn. 

Recently, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia introduced legislation that would ban the sale of sexually explicit material on military bases by lowering the threshold required to deem material "sexually explicit." 

Soldiers are up in arms about the proposal.  Some say the ban is bad for morale; others claim they read the magazine for the stories and "new gadgets" featured inside.  Due to the don't ask don't tell policy, there's no way to determine why.  

Last year, a Department of Defense committee that reviews materials sold on bases ruled that magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse are not pornographic.  But Broun's Military Honor and Decency Act includes language that could place those magazines in the sordid company of Barely Legal, Newcummers,  and Screw, making them eligible for censorship. 

Broun, a Marine veteran, told Newsweek recently that the magazines are partly responsible for a rise in sexual assaults in the military and other problems. On his website, Braun issued the following statement:

"Allowing the 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."

One problem with Braun's proposal is that there's no evidence to support the theory behind it.  If he wishes to be taken seriously, he should propose an experimental ban of these magazines on a few bases and compare the trends in sexual crimes on those bases to others in the future.  Blanketing the military with a shroud of visual anorexia is not only reckless policy-making, it's arguably unconstitutional.

As one soldier stated: "They're making it a point of undermining soldiers to almost make them feel like we're back in elementary school," Pfc. Nickolas Sears said Friday at Camp Red Cloud, South Korea. "We're all adults here, and if it's something we want to do, we should feel free to choose as we please."

Others weren't quite as eloquent, but did convey their preference for access to Playboy and the like. "Playboy is good entertainment while you are on the can. They have jokes and good stories." 

A few female soldiers and military spouses interviewed by Stars and Stripes support the ban, stating that while they don't mind the magazines, they think the ban would support an overall healthier lifestyle.

"It's a good idea," military spouse Roberta Woolley said of the proposed ban. "I think there's better literature out there.... In the military, we sell cigarettes and alcohol legally. But it's also questionable whether they promote a healthy lifestyle."

The debate over the ban is akin to one that circulated the life of Hustler publisher Larry Flint in the 1970's and early 1980's.  Those opposed to Hustler Magazine sued Flint and his company in an attempt to have the pornography banned from being sold.  Ultimately, free speech won and the magazine continued to be available.  It seems then that history is in the midst of repeating itself on military bases.  Maybe this time Elliot Spitzer will serve as the defense attorney.