OBSCENITY AND PORNOGRAPHY MAY BE DEFINED AS THE USE OF LANGUAGE OR IMAGES RELATING TO THE BODY, VIOLENCE, OR SEX THAT EXCEED THE BOUNDS OF PROPRIETY WHICH A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE PUBLIC FINDS APPROPRIATE FOR THE CONTEXT AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE SITUATION IN WHICH THEY ARE USED. EFFORTS AT CONTROL SHOULD PROCEED ONLY AFTER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FOLLOWING: A DISTINCTION OF PRIVATE FROM PUBLIC RIGHTS TO EXPRESSION, A DISTINCTION OF POLITICAL FROM NONPOLITICAL RIGHTS TO EXPRESSION, AND A PLAUSIBLE CASE THAT THE MAJORITY CAN CLAIM HARM FROM PUBLIC OBSCENITY. REGARDING THE PUBLIC/PRIVATE DISTINCTION, THE MAJORITY IN A FREE SOCIETY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ESTABLISHING THE LAWS OF THE COMMUNITY, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME THIS RESPONSIBILITY IS LIMITED BY CERTAIN ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGES GRANTED TO MINORITIES AND INDIVIDUALS AS A CONCEPT OF BASIC RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. THE PROBLEM IS TO DEFINE CIVIL RIGHTS IN SUCH A WAY AS TO PRESERVE A MEANINGFUL AREA OF FREEDOM, BOTH FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO CAN FORM MAJORITIES AND FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POLITICAL AND NONPOLITICAL RIGHTS TO EXPRESSION IS LESS CONSTITUTIONALLY DISTINCT. PROFANITY AND NUDITY ARE SOMETIMES REGARDED AS POLITICAL EXPRESSION; RANDOM VIOLENCE MAY CARRY A POLITICAL MESSAGE. HOWEVER, IF THE COURTS WERE NOT SO CONFUSED BY THE CLAIM THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT GAVE AN UNLIMITED RIGHT TO ALL EXPRESSION, THEY MIGHT PLAUSIBLY DETERMINE WHAT CONSTITUTES AN AUTHENTIC POLITICAL MESSAGE. THE SUPREME COURT FAILS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN POLITICALLY AND NONPOLITICALLY RELEVANT RIGHTS. IT HAS DECIDED THAT A WORK MUST HAVE SERIOUS LITERARY, ARTISTIC, POLITICAL, OR SCIENTIFIC VALUE TO AVOID AN OBSCENE LABEL. THE COURT APPEARS TO REST JUSTIFICATION OF ITS DECISION ON UTILITARIAN ARGUMENTS FOR FREEDOM THAT MAY DISSOLVE IN THE FUTURE. IN A MAJORITARIAN STATE, FREEDOM OF SPEECH MUST, INSTEAD, BE PROTECTED BY A MORE ABSOLUTE BUT LESS ALL-INCLUSIVE PRINCIPLE THAT REFERS TO RATIONAL POLITICAL DISCOURSE AS AN INELUCTABLE REQUIREMENT OF POLITICAL DEMOCRACY. SINCE REGULATION OF OBSCENTY LIMITS FREEDOM, AND SINCE IT HAS BEEN SHOWN THAT ITS EXISTENCE MAY BRING PLEASURE TO MANY, ITS LEGAL RESTRICTION IN A LIBERAL SOCIETY CANNOT BE ADVOCATED UNLESS A PLAUSIBLE CASE CAN BE MADE THAT FAILURE TO RESTRICT OBSCENITY CAUSES SUBSTANTIAL HARM TO MAJORITY INTERESTS. IT MAY BE PLAUSIBLY ARGUED THAT ONCE CASUAL SEX AND VIOLENCE PERMEATE OUR LIVES, THEY WILL FURTHER REINFORCE AND POPULARIZE A DIMINSHED VIEW OF MAN. THE MAJORITY HAS A MORAL RIGHT TO LEGISLATE, OUTSIDE THE POLITICAL REALM, WHAT SHOULD BE PERMITTED IN PUBLIC IN A MORAL SOCIETY. REPRESENTATIVES OF SOCIETY CAN, IN THE FACE OF OBSCENITY AND PORNOGRAPHY, MAKE A CASE FOR RESTRICTION. FOR LEGISLATION OR ENFORCEMENT BEYOND THIS, ADVOCATES MUST ESTABLISH MORE DETAILED CONSEQUENTIALIST ARGUMENTS FOR PARTICULAR DEFINITIONS OF THE CONCEPTS OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, POLITICAL AND NONPOLITICAL, AND OBSCENITY AND PORNOGRAPHY BEFORE A FRAMEWORK OF EFFECTIVE CONTROL CAN BE CONSTRUCTED OR PRESENTED. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (KBL)