interception would thus be brought within limits consistent with the First and Fourth Amendments, and would then apply, if at all, only to mail recognizably originating from agents already convicted in an obscenity action. We must bear in mind that no one has to read, look at, or use anything that he or she does not want to read, look at, or use, and we must recognize this permissiveness as applying to all except minors, or others who may be incapable of reaching mature judgments.

A revision of statute such as suggested in the foregoing paragraph could, conceivably, result in a deluge of complaints to Postal Authorities of a malicious, or merely "nuisance" nature. Adequate machinery would have to be set up to screen and eliminate groundless or trivial complaints. However, this would not be at all impossible. For example, the recipient could be obliged to file claim in person, produce the offending material, and identify and confront the sender. The sender would be immediately exonerated upon proof that the material had knowingly been solicited. Such measures would promptly dispose of most trivial or non-actionable claims.

Although "obscenity" is essentially a private and subjective evaluation, it is nevertheless a very real one to many persons; and every U. S. citizen has a right to protest to authorities of law and order against unwelcome, unsolicited exposure to that which gives offense. Therefore, whatever Postal statutes may be, or become, so long as the U. S. Government operates the mails, individuals must have recourse through public law and public agencies, against those who purvey through the mails any material which they consider "obscene" or otherwise objectionable or illegal. Naturally, however, in cases of alleged obscenity, an individual's complaint should never constitute a

conviction, and it should still be left to our courts to decide, in complaints of "obscenity" in literature and the arts, whether the plaintiff is merely erotically hypersensitive, or whether the material complained of is, in fact "obscene" by whatever standards can be agreed upon.

There are certain economic questions which are closely enough related to the legal to deserve mention here. These are involved with the fact that the U. S. citizen not only pays directly for postal services at increasingly higher rates, but also pays, in the form of taxes, for the generally huge yearly deficits incurred through our postal operations. Some, therefore, ask, what are we paying for? To have our mail interfered with? To support a presently-legal form of espionage over our communications with others? These questions are not illogical, altogether, but neither are they as simple as they sound.

We all pay taxes-if not willingly, then at least without official protestto support necessary legislation and law enforcement at municipal, county, state, and Federal levels, and to support the agencies which carry on government business. All of these agencies have regulations, and a part of every tax dollar must go to pay salaries to those who are appointed to see to it that regulations are observed and enforced. The U. S. Post Office necessarily has regulations to govern its services and internal oper-

ations.

In the light of these observations, we can hardly become hysterical if Postal Officials do what Postal Regulations require them to do. In cases of postal censorship under "obscenity" statutes, we may indeed become indignant over the ineptness or prurience, or incapacity for judgment displayed by individual officials. However, this is all beside the point. The point is that perhaps we, the public,

11