Police blotter: Porn burns Navy officer

"Police blotter" is a weekly report on the intersection of technology and the law. This episode: A 24-year Navy veteran is punished for his porn Web sites.

What: Prosecution of a Navy chief warrant officer for running adult sex Web sites on which a minor appeared.

When: Decided on July 28 by the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals.

Outcome: Sentence of two years confinement and forfeiture of pay that arose out of a general court-martial was upheld.

What happened: Chief Warrant Officer Oliver J. Smith had discovered a profitable side business: adult entertainment on the Internet. Smith ran two Web sites in which he posted photos of himself and his ex-wife (who had married another naval officer) having sex and, in the words of the court, engaging in "fetish activities."

Smith also enlisted the help of a subordinate petty officer to post hundreds of photos they obtained from an unnamed source. The duo didn't keep the detailed records of performers' ages that are required under federal law, and at least one actor was a minor.

After their side business was discovered during an investigation of child pornography being produced in base housing, Smith, a 24-year Navy veteran with a distinguished career, left town on an unauthorized absence of 17 months.

The Navy's criminal appeals court upheld Smith's sentence of two years confinement and forfeiture of $1,000 in pay a month for 240 months ($240,000 over 20 years).

Quote: "The appellant's operation of an adult entertainment Web site directly involved: (1) adultery with the wife of a fellow naval officer; (2) fraternization with a subordinate, which led to the subordinate committing misconduct and receiving nonjudicial punishment; (3) exploitation of an underage dependent by placing pornographic photos of her on the Internet; and, (4) Internet postings of pictures of himself engaged in sexually explicit acts. After reviewing the entire record, including careful consideration of the evidence in extenuation and mitigation, we conclude that the appellant's assertion that his sentence was inappropriately severe is without merit." --U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals

[GrandpaN1947]

Private is Private is Private

I'm all for freedom but public devulgence of information while in the military impacts America's public image. And, there is no excuse for participation by a minor. I wonder what the sentence would have been had he been a private civilian?