Patently offensive, indecent material presented over
the airwaves confronts the citizen, not only in public,
but also in the privacy of the home, where the
individual's right to be left alone plainly outweighs
the First Amendment rights of an intruder. Because the
broadcast audience is constantly tuning in and out,
prior warnings cannot completely protect the listener
or viewer from unexpected program content.

Id. at 748 (citation omitted); accord Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S.
474, 485 (1988) ("Although in many locations, we expect
individuals simply to avoid speech they do not want to hear, the
home is different."); see also Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights,
418 U.S. 298, 302 (1974) (plurality opinion) (upholding a
content-based restriction on the sale of advertising space in
public transit vehicles and noting that "[t]he streetcar audience
is a captive audience").


Although neither the Supreme Court nor the Third Circuit has
recognized a compelling state interest in shielding the
sensibilities of unwilling viewers, beyond laws intended to
preserve the privacy of individuals' homes or to protect captive
audiences, we do not read the case law as categorically
foreclosing recognition, in the public library setting, of the
state's interest in protecting unwilling viewers. See Pacifica,
438 U.S. at 749 n.27 ("Outside the home, the balance between the
offensive speaker and the unwilling audience may sometimes tip in
favor of the speaker, requiring the offended listener to turn
away.") (emphasis added). Under certain circumstances, therefore