degree, by obscenity doctrine, which originated in part to permit
the state to shield the unwilling viewer. "The Miller standard,
like its predecessors, was an accommodation between the State's
interests in protecting the sensibilities of unwilling recipients
from exposure to pornographic material and the dangers of
censorship inherent in unabashedly content-based laws." Ferber,
458 U.S. at 756 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted);
see also Miller, 413 U.S. at 18-19 ("This Court has recognized
that the States have a legitimate interest in prohibiting
dissemination or exhibition of obscene material when the mode of
dissemination carries with it a significant danger of offending
the sensibilities of unwilling recipients or of exposure to
juveniles.") (citation omitted). To the extent that speech has
serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, and
therefore is not obscene under the Miller test of obscenity, the
state's interest in shielding unwilling viewers from such speech
is tenuous.


Nonetheless, the Court has recognized that in certain
limited circumstances, the state has a legitimate interest in
protecting the public from unwilling exposure to speech that is
not obscene. This interest has justified restrictions on speech
"when the speaker intrudes on the privacy of the home, or the
degree of captivity makes it impractical for the unwilling viewer
or auditor to avoid exposure." Erznoznik, 422 U.S. at 209
(citations omitted). Thus, in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438
U.S. 726 (1978), the Court relied on the state's interest in
shielding viewers' sensibilities to uphold a prohibition against
profanity in radio broadcasts: