 Like Dworkin, Feinberg thinks that the voluntary private consumption of pornography does not cause harm to others. Hence, wholesale criminal prohibitions on the publication and private voluntary consumption of pornography cannot be justified. But the public display of pornography may nonetheless constitute an “offensive nuisance” to non-consenting adults who are involuntarily exposed to it (just as neighbors who play loud music into the wee hours of the morning may be an “offensive nuisance”). Since the harm – or rather, pseudo-harm – of pornography is the offense it may cause unwitting viewers involuntarily exposed to it, the solution is to restrict its exhibition to domains where such involuntary exposure will not occur, such as inside well sign-posted adult bookshops and cinemas where those who will be offended will know not to venture (Feinberg 1983, 105–13.) Although this may prevent pornographers from distributing their opinions as widely as they might like and may also cause some minor inconvenience to consumers (who may have to go further out of their way to find and view pornography or suffer the embarrassment of having to sneak into known adult bookstores), these costs may be relatively small compared with the level of offense that involuntary exposure is likely to cause. Such restrictions on the public display of pornography would not amount to censorship, for pornographers are still free to publish and distribute their opinions. Nor would they violate consumers’ right to privacy, for pornography would be freely available for willing consumers to view in private. The Williams Committee Report on Obscenity and Film Censorship in England (Williams 1981) made a similar recommendation, pointing to general considerations of public decency that prevent offensive public displays of conduct (e.g., nudity or sexual intercourse) that is appropriately seen or done only in private. Susan Wendell (1983) also agrees that the public display of certain sorts of pornography – visual, audio and written material that depicts and condones the unjustified physical coercion of women or other human beings – should be prohibited, although her particular concern is to remove the anxiety that involuntarily exposure to such coercive material is likely to cause women and the harm it is likely to do to their self-esteem.