The United States Supreme Court case, Meese v. Keene, in which the justices narrowly defined the meaning of the term "political propaganda," failed to address adequately the complexities of the issue. In this case it is necessary to bring together divergent views about communications in the analysis of the legal problem, including historical methods of information control, case law, the arguments in the case, social science findings, and press model research. The case centered on the right of the government to label certain films as "political propaganda." In Meese v. Keene the Court: (1) failed to deal with the questions about persuasion from the body of knowledge that exists; (2) considered some and rejected other "evidence" without regard for the role of theory in science; (3) took a very limited view of social science research as evidence; and (4) did not consider studies on the role of free expression in democracies. The majority in Meese v. Keene took the view that the term "political propaganda" is neutral, but except for the narrow legal fiction of statutory language, this cannot be satisfactory. The dissenters argued that the label burdens discourse without serving a strong governmental interest. Rather than promoting pluralism, the use suggests a singular view of "truth." (Ninety-five notes are included.) (MS)