MOKGORO J free expression satisfy the requirements of section 33 of the Constitution. 53 Application of the Limitations Clause [36] Section 33 of the Constitution provides, inter alia: The rights entrenched [in Chapter 3] may be limited by law of general application, provided that such limitation -(a) shall be permissible only to the extent that it is -(i) reasonable; and (ii) justifiable in an open and democratic society based upon freedom and equality . . . [37] The right to receive, hold and consume expressive material, whether or not its content is sexually explicit, is not unqualified. Like all rights, it is subject to limitation under section 33 of the Constitution. Review of legislation restricting sexually explicit material may call upon a court to distinguish categories of such material that the state is justified in regulating from those categories that may not justifiably be regulated. Courts in the United States and Canada have developed an extensive jurisprudence in this area; it is useful to survey some of that law before turning to the implications of the limitations clause in our Constitution. 54 Distinguishing Categories of Sexually Explicit Expression: The North American Experience [38] In Roth v United States,55 the United States Supreme Court for the first time confronted the question of obscenity and the First Amendment. The Court turned away from the common law 53 See S v Makwanyane 1995 (6) BCLR 665 (CC) 708, para 102. 54 I emphasise that my review of foreign authority should not be taken to mean that I necessarily approve of any of the authorities cited. 55 354 U.S. 476 (1957). 20