When my now-wife, working in a college computer lab, found a picture of a woman having sex with a dog on the lab computer, perhaps "force" is too strong but she didn't voluntarily want to look at it. When people in public libraries walk past men looking at pornography on the public computers, perhaps "force" is too strong of a word, but they are not voluntarily wanting to look at it. When a woman driving with her children her car pulls up behind or next to a minivan with clearly visible pornography on the entertainment system, perhaps "force" is too strong of a word, but she's not voluntarily wanting to watch pornography, nor does she probably want her children watching it.
I know the stock Libertarian solution is that nice people should close their doors, pull down their shades, and hide in their homes. But when a liberty imprisons nice people in their homes and lets the freaks run wild, I'm sorry but that liberty has become a liability, not a benefit. It's the freaks that should be hiding behind drawn curtains, not nice people with families.
And what I find curious is how quickly things have shifted from protecting people's rights to do things in the privacy of their own home to protecting people's rights to do things in public spaces. That, boys and girls, is the classic slippery slope in action.
Excellent point.
Those are clearly issues separate from the production of pornography. I have no problem with public libraries restricting the viewing of pornography on public taxpayer funded computers and servers. I have no problem with local ordinances prohibiting the viewing of pornography on a car video screen in such a way that it is visible to others (public decency laws and the like), and I have no problem with public or private universities restricting web sites that contain pornography. My point is that we do not need an expensive government program to accomplish any of this.