4.2.12 WC: 191694 defended the right of skinny dippers to an isolated section of the Cape Cod National Seashore. (In 197_, a federal district court recognized a limited right to nude sunbathing in areas that present no conflicts with the rights of others. The decision, despite its limited scope was characterized as a “Magna Carta for nudism.’’) Pornography, like nudity, offends many Americans, but there are those who would ban not only public displays of pornography, but private use as well. They argue that three distinct types of harm are caused by pornography. The first, as with nudity, is that it is offensive to many people who are involuntarily exposed to it. No empirical evidence is required to prove this kind of harm: if people say they are offended, that is the end of the matter. The second is that some people are offended by the mere knowledge that other people, who are not offending by watching it, are watching it in private. Whether this type of what I call “vicarious offensiveness” warrants an except to the First Amendment raises profound legal issues. The third, very different, kind of harm is that pornography is alleged to cause rape and other physical violence against women. This allegation, which if true would warrant legal protection, is hotly disputed and unproven, if not improvable.** group, he might respond by striking back. Hence, such provocatively offensive expressions have been called “fighting words” and have been denied First Amendment protection by some courts over the years. This concept has assumed center stage recently, as some Muslim groups, individuals and even nations have threatened violence in response to the publication of “offensive” books, cartoons and other media critiques of Islam and its prophet. The stakes have also risen. Instead of merely fighting words, some radical Muslims regard insults to the prophet as killing and bombing words. * The issue is somewhat complicated, because it may be true that certain kinds of violent p