in the Los Angeles courthouse could effectively avoid further
bombardment of their sensibilities simply by averting their
eyes." Id.


Similarly, in Erznoznik, the Court invalidated on its face a
municipal ordinance prohibiting drive-in movie theaters from
showing films containing nudity if they were visible from a
public street or place. The city's "primary argument [was] that
it may protect its citizens against unwilling exposure to
materials that may be offensive." 422 U.S. at 208. The Court
soundly rejected this interest in shielding the unwilling viewer:
The plain, if at times disquieting, truth is that in
our pluralistic society, constantly proliferating new
and ingenious forms of expression, we are inescapably
captive audiences for many purposes. Much that we
encounter offends our esthetic, if not our political
and moral, sensibilities. Nevertheless, the
Constitution does not permit government to decide which
types of otherwise protected speech are sufficiently
offensive to require protection for the unwilling
listener or viewer. Rather, absent . . . narrow
circumstances . . . the burden normally falls upon the
viewer to avoid further bombardment of his
sensibilities simply by averting his eyes.

422 U.S. at 210-11 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
The state's interest in protecting unwilling viewers from
exposure to patently offensive material is accounted for, to some