The Attorney General's Commission on Pornography concluded in a report issued yesterday that some forms of pornography cause sexual violence, a finding its chairman said was based on "moral and ethical considerations" as well as the panel's analysis of scientific evidence.

Henry E. Hudson, capping a year of controversy about the commission by releasing its 1,960-page report, said at a crowded news conference that the 11 members also had to weigh uncorroborated testimony and use "common sense" in linking pornographic material to violent behavior.

"If we relied exclusively on scientific data for every one of our findings, I'm afraid all of our work would be inconclusive," said Hudson, who became the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia last month.

Among other things, the report urges state and local prosecutors to crack down on pornography with help from a proposed Justice Department task force. It said Congress should amend prostitution and unfair-labor-practice laws so they can be used against film producers who hire actors and actresses for X-rated films. It also said forfeiture and interstate commerce laws should be strengthened to make it easier to seize pornography.

The report called for a ban on obscene materials on cable television and on "Dial-a-Porn" telephone messages. It also provided guidelines for the formation of citizen groups to monitor and complain about allegedly obscene materials sold at newsstands, videocassette stores and elsewhere.

Hudson appeared eager to respond to the wave of negative publicity that has surrounded the commission's work, and he tried to soften or play down some of its 92 recommendations. In presenting the report to Attorney General Edwin Meese III, Hudson said it refutes "the initial criticism of the commission, namely, that it was biased and lacking in objectivity. Those people who expected a document supporting censorship will be disappointed."

The report attracted such wide interest that the news conference had to be held in the Justice Department's cavernous Great Hall to accommodate the horde of reporters and 27 television cameras on hand. A feminist anti-censorship group was picketing outside, and there were lines at the Government Printing Office, where 4,000 copies were available for $35 apiece.

Later in the day, the media pack moved across town and squeezed into the American Civil Liberties Union's town house, where legislative counsel Barry W. Lynn denounced the report as a "taxpayer-financed consumer fraud."

"All that this government study proves is that if you give a biased pro-censorship commission a half million tax dollars and a year, they will write a lopsided pro-censorship report," Lynn said. "This report is little more than prudishness and moralizing masquerading behind social science jargon."

Lynn has conducted a one-man guerrilla campaign against the panel, going to court to obtain its internal papers under the Freedom of Information Act and repeatedly publicizing the material with heavy doses of criticism and ridicule.

The two-volume report devotes more than 100 pages to alphabetical listings of the titles of magazines, books and movies the panel considers pornographic, including "Kinky Couples," "Wild Toga Party," "Victoria's Secret Desires," "Japanese Erotica," "Oriental Taboo" and "Trashy Lady." It also includes detailed descriptions and dialogue from such movies as "Deep Throat," "Debbie Does Dallas" and "The Taming of Rebecca." Hudson said this material was included to provide "an active picture of what was obscenity."

Meese repeatedly declined to comment on the findings or to say whether he would act on them, saying he had not read the report and would not comment on media accounts. In response to a question, he said he did not know whether the report's view of pornography would apply to a pair of half-naked Greek statues behind the podium.

But Meese defended the commission and said he was "not concerned about any censorship being fostered by this document. I can guarantee to you that there will be no censorship. . . in violation of the First Amendment."

Most states have laws allowing them to close pornographic book stores, seize pornography and prosecute those who produce obscene materials. Recently, jurisdictions have enacted special laws aimed at curtailing pornography involving children.

Hudson said the panel had decided not to name companies involved in the distribution of pornography. He did not address allegations in a lawsuit that the commission had intimidated convenience and drug stores that recently halted sale of Playboy and Penthouse magazines after being told by the commission that they might be named in its report as purveyors of pornography.

Hudson, who brought frequent antipornography prosecutions when he was Arlington County commonwealth's attorney, said the panel was not recommending the formation of citizen groups. But he said it wanted to aid such groups by publishing "a compilation of successful techniques" that citizens can use "if obscenity is a problem in their neighborhood."

Several social scientists have said that the panel misrepresented their work in asserting that "in both clinical and experimental settings, exposure to sexually violent materials has indicated an increase in the likelihood of aggression." The panel found such a link for two of its categories of pornography -- those involving sexual violence or degrading and humiliating treatment of women -- but not for nondegrading sexual material or simple nudity.

Hudson said there was "a misconception . . . that our findings are or should be totally predicated on scientific data." He said the panel also relied on witnesses at its six public hearings, who included law enforcement officials, antipornography activists and 30 abused women, prostitutes and other self-described "victims" of pornography.

"We don't say pornography is the sole cause of antisocial behavior or antisocial attitudes," Hudson said. "It is merely a factor, but it is a significant factor." He said such material would mainly affect those who were "predisposed" toward sexual violence.

Two commissioners -- Columbia University instructor Judith Becker and Woman's Day editor Ellen Levine -- said in dissent that the panel could not even agree on what constituted "degrading" material.

"Efforts to tease the current data into proof of a causal link. . . simply cannot be accepted," Becker and Levine said. They also said that "no self-respecting investigator would accept conclusions" from a commission that lacked the time and money for original research.

Hudson acknowledged that "it was very difficult to find a consensus on how to express what is humiliating and degrading."

The ACLU's Lynn said this amounted to a message that "I don't know it if I see it, but I don't want you to see it anyway . . . . This report walks, waddles and quacks like censorship."

Lynn said the final report deleted a survey of 13 leading sex magazines because the finding -- that less than 1 percent of the material involved violence -- did not support its conclusions.

Hudson said he had opposed an attempt by some commissioners to render opinions on certain sexual practices. He said he did not believe the panel had done this in a chapter that questions promiscuous behavior. "Although there are many members of this society who can and have made affirmative cases for uncommitted sexuality, none of us believes it to be a good thing," the report said