Although the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, also known as the Meese Commission, has been criticized excessively at times for threatening freedom of speech and press and individual rights to privacy, an analysis of its "Final Report" reveals numerous deficiencies in the Commission's decision-making process. These deficiencies, apparently influenced by initial biases and strongly held beliefs about the ill effects of pornography, are evident in the Commission's conception of the problem, the unwarranted inferences from which it drew conclusions, and the reliance on questionable causal relationships as the source of many of its recommendations. The report suggests that the members were unable to keep values, tastes, and prior beliefs disentangled from facts. The Commission did not develop a definition of pornography, but rather divided offensive, sexually explicit material into four categories: (1) sexually violent; (2) nonviolent, but depicting degradation, domination, subordination, or humiliation; (3) nonviolent and nondegrading; and (4) nudity. The various classifications were considered in relation to evidence establishing harm, either of a primary or a secondary nature. These classifications suffered from at least as much ambiguity as the term pornography itself. The Commission was divided over the validity of the nonviolent and nondegrading category and dismissed the relevance of the nudity category. Thus, they were left with three categories, one of which was a question even in their own minds. Additionally, the Commission found no evidence of a direct cause and effect relationship between pornography and violence against women or children, but chose to infer one out of "common sense." The Commission's approach appears to have been based on a prior presumption of a need for certain legislative proposals, for which rationales in available information were then sought. (Eighteen references are included.) (JC)