Obscenity: "The right not to see"

[Donovan A.]

I'm looking for where Ayn Rand wrote about "the right not to see." I remember reading something she wrote on how one should be notified in advanced, if one is entering an area where nudity is permitted, etc. Any help finding the source would be appreciated.

Thanks so much,

Randall

[Reidy]

I don't recognize this phrase, but she wrote on the topic of obscenity laws in "Censorship: Local and Express" in The Ayn Rand Letter, which published in the early to mid 70s.

[Donovan A.]

Thanks for the reply Reidy, but that article doesn't appear to have the quote I am looking for.

[Reidy]

In that case, are you sure she said it?

[ThatGuy]

Randall, here is the quote:

"Only one aspect of sex is a legitimate field for legislation: the protection of minors and of unconsenting adults. Apart from criminal actions (such as rape), this aspect includes the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome. (A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen.) Legal restraints on certain types of public displays, such as posters or window displays, are proper—but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality . . .

"The rights of those who seek pornography would not be infringed by rules protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive—e.g., sexually explicit posters may properly be forbidden in public places; warning signs, such as “For Adults Only,” may properly be required of private places which are open to the public. This protects the unconsenting, and has nothing to do with censorship, i.e., with prohibiting thought or speech."

“Thought Control,”
The Ayn Rand Letter, III, 2, 2

[Selene]

The rights of those who seek pornography would not be infringed by rules protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive—e.g., sexually explicit posters may properly be forbidden in public places; warning signs, such as “For Adults Only,” may properly be required of private places which are open to the public.

Interesting that you do not define pornography. Heinlein quipped that one man's magic is another man's engineering.

I think the same linguistic principle would also apply to "pornography." We all know the "snippet" of Potter Stewart regarding "pornography:"

To the general public, Stewart may be best known for a quotation, or a fragment thereof, from his opinion in the obscenity case of Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). Stewart wrote in his short concurrence that "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it."^[12]

Usually dropped from the quote is the remainder of that sentence, "and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." Justice Stewart went on to defend the movie in question against further censorship. One noted commentator opined that: "This observation summarizes Stewart's judicial philosophy: particularistic, intuitive, and pragmatic."^[12] Justice Stewart later recanted this view in Miller v. California, in which he accepted that his prior view was simply untenable.

Justice Stewart commented about his second thoughts about that quotation in 1981. “In a way I regret having said what I said about obscenity -- that’s going to be on my tombstone. When I remember all of the other solid words I’ve written,” he said, “I regret a little bit that if I’ll be remembered at all I’ll be remembered for that particular phrase.” Washington Post Obituary

Another quote by the Honorable Potter Stewart is "ranked as one of the ten best statements on censorship, among his most quote worthy statements was in a dissenting opinion in Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966): 'Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.'”^[19]

A...

[william.scherk]

I don't know if anyone here has read Gore Vidal's Myra Breckenridge, or the sequel Myron.

From Wikipedia:

In his introduction to the novel, Vidal mentions the Supreme Court decision Miller v. California, which in his words "leaves to each community the right to decide what is pornography." Saying that the decision has "alarmed and confused peddlers of smut" by eliminating guidelines, Vidal says he has decided to substitute the names of the five Justices who voted for the decision, plus the names of anti-pornography crusaders Charles Keating of Citizens for Decent Literature and Father Morton A. Hill, S.J. of Morality in Media (whom Vidal had debated on The David Susskind Show in 1968), for the "dirty words." He has done this to conform to the Supreme Court's imposition of the "community standards" test, as he wants "to conform with the letter and spirit of the Court's decision."

These are the words and their substitutions:

• blackmun: ass
• burger: fuck
• father hills: tits
• keating: shit
• powells: balls
• rehnquist: cock
• whizzer white: cunt

The book is stupid, albeit well-written, but I remember screaming with laughter each time the sex scenes started up: He firmly stroked her father hills as her whizzer white clamped shut on his rehnquist. Her feet beat against his blackmun as they burgered.

[ThatGuy]

The rights of those who seek pornography would not be infringed by rules protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive—e.g., sexually explicit posters may properly be forbidden in public places; warning signs, such as “For Adults Only,” may properly be required of private places which are open to the public.

Interesting that you do not define pornography. Heinlein quipped that one man's magic is another man's engineering.

That should be directed at Rand, as that was not my argument, but hers. (My apologies; I forgot to add the quotation marks in that post ( since fixed). I was providing the quote from Rand that Randall was seeking.)

[Selene]

The rights of those who seek pornography would not be infringed by rules protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive—e.g., sexually explicit posters may properly be forbidden in public places; warning signs, such as “For Adults Only,” may properly be required of private places which are open to the public.

Interesting that you do not define pornography. Heinlein quipped that one man's magic is another man's engineering.

That should be directed at Rand, as that was not my argument, but hers. (My apologies; I forgot to add the quotation marks in that post ( since fixed). I was providing the quote from Rand that Randall was seeking.)

Understood.

[Jonathan]

I'm looking for where Ayn Rand wrote about "the right not to see." I remember reading something she wrote on how one should be notified in advanced, if one is entering an area where nudity is permitted, etc. Any help finding the source would be appreciated.

Thanks so much,

Randall

You might find this thread interesting.

J

[Jonathan]

I don't know if anyone here has read Gore Vidal's Myra Breckenridge, or the sequel Myron.

From Wikipedia:

In his introduction to the novel, Vidal mentions the Supreme Court decision Miller v. California, which in his words "leaves to each community the right to decide what is pornography." Saying that the decision has "alarmed and confused peddlers of smut" by eliminating guidelines, Vidal says he has decided to substitute the names of the five Justices who voted for the decision, plus the names of anti-pornography crusaders Charles Keating of Citizens for Decent Literature and Father Morton A. Hill, S.J. of Morality in Media (whom Vidal had debated on The David Susskind Show in 1968), for the "dirty words." He has done this to conform to the Supreme Court's imposition of the "community standards" test, as he wants "to conform with the letter and spirit of the Court's decision."

These are the words and their substitutions:

• blackmun: ass
• burger: fuck
• father hills: tits
• keating: shit
• powells: balls
• rehnquist: cock
• whizzer white: cunt

The book is stupid, albeit well-written, but I remember screaming with laughter each time the sex scenes started up: He firmly stroked her father hills as her whizzer white clamped shut on his rehnquist. Her feet beat against his blackmun as they burgered.

Heh. And more recently "santorum" has been added to the vocabulary.

J

[Brant Gaede]

In 1968 at NBI Leonard Peikoff briefly discussed pornography and stated he couldn't tell where it began and ended and if he had had his omnipotent druthers he'd never have let that word into the language.

--Brant

[Reidy]

To say that the line at which reading or viewing material becomes overtly, explicitly sexy is a unique line for each viewer does not mean that pornography is not a legitimate, definable concept. Height, weight and current location are different from person to person, yet we don't say that these are arbitrary or undefinable. Justice Stewart's famous remark shows a greater talent for one-liners than for logic.

[Brant Gaede]

At one time I believe many SC justices met to view pornography to determine if it was or if it didn't meet "community standards." I think it was Douglas who declined to see the stuff.

--Brant

[Selene]

Under the First Amendment, can there be a "community standards" standard that is justifiable under law?

Congress shall...

This clearly does not apply to the states which implicitly injects "community" standards into the equation of what is, or, is not, imaging, or, writing, "pornographic."

Now, tangentially, through the Fourteenth Amendment, theses "rights" are extended to the states.

Unfortunately, the "law" and the community standards are built on the shifting sands of community standards.

A...