The issue of the proper role of government in the censorship of sexually explicit material is analyzed in this article from a symbolic interactionist view of communication and traditional principles of constitutional liberty. The paper focuses on the Supreme Court's adjudication of obscenity cases and proposes a set of principles consistent with the United States Constitution as an alternative framework for such adjudication. Major sections of the article detail the communication perspective, current principles of adjudication used in obscenity cases (especially the case of "Miller vs. California"), and an alternative framework for such adjudication. The alternative framework is based on the view that obscenity ought to be abandoned as a legal concept and that instead courts should apply principles used in other cases involving offensive communication and fundamental rights. Two broad postulates are suggested: (1) the government should disallow state action that creates a substantial ban aimed at communication content; and (2) in certain narrowly defined circumstances in which other fundamental rights are endangered, the government should have some power to regulate communication selectively in order to maintain the system of liberty. (Author/GW)