After a discussion of the concept of communication as an integral part of human interaction and social development, the article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court's adjudication of obscenity cases and proposes a set of principles consistent with the U.S. Constitution as an alternative framework for such adjudication. The primary assertion of this article is that the Supreme Court should consider sexually explicit communication to be within the system of liberty and should, therefore, apply rigorous constitutional principles derived from other fundamental rights cases to obscenity cases. The Court should follow two broad postulates for adjudicating cases involving sexually explicit material: substantial bans aimed at communication content should be presumed unconstitutional, and the presumption should be rebuttable only in certain narrowly defined circumstances where fundamental rights are endangered. In the latter case, the regulation should be no broader than necessary to rectify that danger. 179 footnotes.