ALTHOUGH THE SUPREME COURT HAS STATED THAT OBSCENITY IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED FORM OF EXPRESSION, THEIR DECISION IN STANLEY V. GEORGIA, WHICH PROHIBITED STATE INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVATE POSSESSION OF OBSCENE MATERIALS IN THE HOME, CREATED CONFUSION ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO REGULATE PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL. THIS CONFUSION WAS LESSENED WHEN THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED THE CASES OF U.S. V. REIDEL AND U.S. V. THIRTY - SEVEN PHOTOGRAPHS. IN UPHOLDING CONVICTIONS FOR THE VIOLATION OF FEDERAL OBSCENITY STATUTES, THE COURT DISTINGUISHED THE STANLEY CASE AS A PROTECTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY RATHER THAN A BAN AGAINST ALL GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS ON THE COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF PORNOGRAPHY. THE AUTHOR REVIEWS THE STANDARDS WHICH WERE USED IN DECIDING ALL OF THESE CASES, AND OFFERS SEVERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE FUTURE OF THE OBSCENITY DOCTRINE.