That Passage from Thought Control, Part III

[Seeker]

The passage below from "Thought Control, Part III", The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. III, No. 2 (October 22, 1973) has appeared in various discussion threads on the subjects of public decency, child abuse, and may have implications for the wider subject of civil law. There is disagreement however as to its meaning and place within Objectivism, which has tended to complicate those discussions. Therefore, I would like to resolve the questions raised by this passage head-on, namely:

Is it Objectivism?

If it is, then what is its relationship to other parts of Objectivism?

Does it have implications for areas other than sex?

What is the meaning of "the freedom not to look or listen"?

Feel free to ask your own questions about this passage here.

This thread is an opportunity to bring rational principles to bear so that we may reach agreement in furtherance of our discussion of related topics as well as to better our understanding of the passage itself. In the event that the discussion spawns debate over underlying issues, separate threads will be started as appropriate.

A caveat: for now at least, the discussion is open only to those who have read the entire article and are thus able to put the quoted passage in its full context. For others, if someone is able to share how to obtain the full article, that would be helpful.

This aspect of the issue is wider than religious influences: civilized men do not tolerate public displays of sub-animal sex. Many people regard a public representation of sexual intercourse to be disgusting - not because sex is evil, but precisely because it is a value, an exception-making value that requires privacy. Censorship, however, is not the solution: resorting to censorship is like cutting a man's head off in order to cure a cold.

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.

No one has the right to do whatever he pleases on a public street (nor would he have such a right on a privately owned street). Similarly, 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 on 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.

[DavidOdden]

For others, if someone is able to share how to obtain the full article, that would be helpful.

This thread gives the essential detail: get the CD. It's a bargain at thrice the price. There is no excuse for a serious student of Objectivism not having this resource, except ignorance of the CDs existence, and one of my goals in life is to deprive prople of ignorance on this topic. The search function alone is worth the few dollars.

As for whether it is Objectivism, that seems quite straightforward. It was written by Ayn Rand, it expressed a philosophical position, Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

[Chops]

get the CD. It's a bargain at thrice the price. There is no excuse for a serious student of Objectivism not having this resource, except ignorance of the CDs existence, and one of my goals in life is to deprive prople of ignorance on this topic. The search function alone is worth the few dollars.

I was unaware of this resource. As I have no excuse for knowing about it and not owning it, I've taken the necessary steps to remedy my depravity - one is en route.

[IAmMetaphysical]

It was written by Ayn Rand, it expressed a philosophical position, Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Then Objectivism be damned, I will have no part in it.

[Seeker]

This thread gives the essential detail: get the CD.

Excellent, this is just what I was hoping for. Thank you!

As for whether it is Objectivism, that seems quite straightforward. It was written by Ayn Rand, it expressed a philosophical position, Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Agreed. If someone wishes to debate this particular point, I will begin a separate thread about what qualifies as Objectivism.

Then Objectivism be damned, I will have no part in it.

So be it, but please observe the caveat in my post which demands full knowledge of the article, at least in the opening stages of discussion - a limitation which all should agree is rational.

[DavidOdden]

Here are my explanatory comments on the passage in question.

Many people regard a public representation of sexual intercourse to be disgusting - not because sex is evil, but precisely because it is a value, an exception-making value that requires privacy. Censorship, however, is not the solution

This asserts that sexual intercourse is an exceptional value which properly pertains to the relationship between two people. This is a recognition of fact in two ways. First, it recognises that sex is an exceptional value for very many people, although in the context of that essay where she condemns the valueless hippie hedonists who consider sex and having a beer to be interchangeable, this does not deny that some people put little value on sex. Second, this recognises that sex should be an exceptional value for rational men. However, regardless of whether sex is a high value or a low value for a given man, she states that prior legal restraint under the law which prohibits depiction of sexual intercourse is an improper solution. Recall that private possession of porn was against the law, and as you would expect, she does not support any legal restriction on exchanges between consenting adults.

Only one aspect of sex is a legitimate field for legislation: the protection of minors and of unconsenting adults.

The point here is that any proper interaction between men requires consent (except that the government may rightly compel a person to non-consentingly comply with the law). But children by nature and non-consenting adults by definition do not consent. In a church or social meeting of some kind, for example, a collection plate may be passed around, and some people may consent to giving money to the cause -- the law rightly protects the non-consenting from having their money taken from them. This means, applied to public sex, that a person must consent to witnessing a sex act.

A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen

This simply means that the choice to watch a sex act implies an alternative, so just as it would be wrong to prevent a man from watching a sex act if that is his choice, it would also be wrong to force a man to watch a sex act if he does not wish to. If there is only one possible outcome, there are no alternatives, and no choice. Freedom implies that there are alternatives -- you must also be free to not see or hear the act.

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 restraints and procedures refer to what she was just discussing, namely that display must preserve a person's rights, to see and hear if and only if they make that choice. That is, before showing a person a sex act, you must secure their consent in some form. Just a tricking a person into handing over their money by fraudulently misrepresenting what is being offered does not constitute consent, neither is there consent when porn is presented instead of the promised children's toys.

The specific implementation of this requirement depends on the context, but in an ordinary American context means that a porn bookstore in a shopping mall should not display actual sex acts or pictures of acts on their mall-facing windows where nonconsenting adults and children are confronted with this vile debasement of value, and instead some less provocative enticement stands on the outside, and the actual depictions of sex are securely inside the shop where only consenting adults will be present. A porn section in a shopping mall is an alternative implementation, which shifts the warning to a particular wing of the mall and not the shop in general; or, a porn section in a regular bookstore, as I hear exists in some shops but have never observed myself.

Similarly, 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.

Which just says what I said.

There are two key problems which some Objectivists and the vast majority of libertarians have problems coming to grips with. The first has to do with the notion of "public", and the second regards "consent". We agree that maintaining shopping malls, streets, sidewalks and beaches is not the proper function of government. What some people have problems grasping is that the government nevertheless does own and control virtually all streets, sidewalks, most beaches, and some shopping malls. We can cry until the cows come home about how unfair it is for the government to own the sidewalks, but that will not change the fact that they do own the sidewalks. Objectivism is a practical philosophy, about how to live qua man even if things are not perfect -- it is not a sour-grapes philosophy that says "We can't even begin to discuss what to do until all men are perfectly rational and rights are universally respected". In the context of actually existing society, then, a decision must be made regarding what a store owner may do to other people on public property. It's just plain silly to say "There is no public property". A person with a comitment to reality would recognise that there is such a thing, and find a way to cope with this imperfection.

The second conceptual problem that some people seem to face regards consent. The fact about human interaction which gums up the works is that so much of our social interaction is conducted implicitly. It is impossible to interact with other men without depending on some level of implicit consent. In order to secure explicit consent, you must request consent -- ask permission. How do you ask permission to get permission? How would you buy a quart of milk at the store, if you can't enter the store without prior express permission, can't open the milk case without prior express permission, can't take the milk to the checkout counter without prior express permission? As a matter of "legal etiquette", our lives as men in a society are possible only given the concept of implicit consent.

Invoking implicit consent cannot be a magical ipse dixit permission slip to do whatever you want and then excuse it with reference to "implicit consent". The logic of implicit consent is not only complex but also rather imprecise, because it depends on unwritten social conventions. So whether or not you are engaging in theft by sampling produce at a store depends on whether or not there is implicit permission to take a sample. In America, there generally isn't; in parts of Europe, there is (or was -- it seems to be a changing convention in Norway).

The proper treatment of questions of implicit consent under the law will focus on whether an ordinary man applying reason to fact would conclude that consent has been given. A reasonable man would conclude that a shop-owner has given implicit consent to allow well-behaved customers with an actual interest in the ware on sale to enter, pick up the wares and attempt to negotiate a sale at the counter. A reasonable man would not conclude that by entering a musty bar down on the docks, the patron has thereby consented to be the victim of an assault.

Applied to public displays of porn, the question reduces to determining whether you have implicitly given your permission to be shown sex acts simply by dint of the fact that you left your house and went to the store to get a quart of milk. What the hippie hedonist movement is attempting to do is change the social conventions of society, creating "implicit consent" where there is no actual consent. If it is a fact that sexual intercourse is considered to be just another way of passing the time and if it is a fact that sex is not held by the vast majority of members of society, or even a voting majority, to be an exceptional and private value, then that fact implies something about the burden of proof and consent -- it would mean that there is no reason to treat sex as any different from a pat on the back. They have not been totally successful at debasing sex so that it is just another form of recreation like tennis or playing video games, but you wouldn't expect such an exceptional value to be completely destroyed overnight. The test will be when a chain porn store comes into existence and opens outlets in malls throughout the country. If they can persuade the mall owners to allow them to have posters in the windows depicting actual fornication, out there for all to see and none to avoid, then you will know that from a social perspective, sex is interchangeable with video games, it is not a special value, there is no social convention saying that sex is a private matter, and a reasonable man would find no difference between saying "Good morning" to a stranger and showing fornication to a person who does not ask to be shown fornication.

[mrocktor]

If someone wishes to debate this particular point, I will begin a separate thread about what qualifies as Objectivism.

I'm up for that.

[Ifat Glassman]

This simply means that the choice to watch a sex act implies an alternative, so just as it would be wrong to prevent a man from watching a sex act if that is his choice, it would also be wrong to force a man to watch a sex act if he does not wish to. If there is only one possible outcome, there are no alternatives, and no choice. Freedom implies that there are alternatives -- you must also be free to not see or hear the act.

The meaning is still not clear enough: Does it mean that every man has a right to be left a choice whether or not to view/hear things?

[mrocktor]

Does it mean that every man has a right to be left a choice whether or not to view/hear things?

I don't want to see purple!

Edited June 28, 2007 by mrocktor

[DavidOdden]

Does it mean that every man has a right to be left a choice whether or not to view/hear things?

Are you asking whether you have a right to force a person to see or hear things against their will?

[mrocktor]

Are you asking whether you have a right to force a person to see or hear things against their will?

How about asking whether you have to clear things with them before they see them? (And I wonder how we clear things with them before they hear them, since we'd have to speak with them to do that!)

[~Sophia~]

Does it mean that every man has a right to be left a choice whether or not to view/hear things?

All things - no. Some things - yes. Some things require obtaining explicit consent (as per David's argument with which I agree).

Is this an instance of questioning rational man's ability to clearly define which things rightfully (based on objective standards) belong to the first group rather than to the second?

What is with those either all or nothing arguments?

[Seeker]

I'm up for that.

Here you go.

[Tenure]

So, I want to be clear - we can determine implicit consent based on what a rational man should hold as implicit consent? Alright then. I can understand that. Are we basically saying that implicit consent changes as rationality or irrationality gains dominance in the public sphere? In other words: is the legal basis for implicit consent based on the rational outlook of the mass populous?

[DavidOdden]

So, I want to be clear - we can determine implicit consent based on what a rational man should hold as implicit consent?

No, that just restates the problem. Let me just ask how you would decide questions about consent. Assuming that you're a reasonable man, then we will have made major progress, upon answering the question. Take the difference between entering a shop, and entering a home. In either case, you need permission to enter because you don't own the property and someone else does. In the case of the Tesco, you can reasonably assume that you have implicit permission to enter, because of your knowledge of what Tesco is, the fact that given the opportunity to eject any of millions of "trespassers" they do not eject people for entering the store, and they overtly say things that would make sense only if you could actually enter the store and take a pie to the checkout for only 99p. This is not unconditional permission: they probably have the shirt&shoes rule posted, and you can't enter when they are closed. You cannot drive your motorcycle in through the front door, and you cannot enter wearing just shoes and shirt, no pants. (Next time your in there, ask the manager if people have permission to come in without pants, and I'll bet that he says something like "no", or something even stronger). If I'm right about you being a reasonable man, you already know this.

I'm also betting that you know that you don't have permission to enter a house that you don't own. However, there are contexts where you might reasonably conclude that you do. One is if you are delivering furniture to a house and the ower opens the door and silently stands aside: it would be absurd to think that a man would buy furniture and not want it put inside the house. Of course I can invent an absurd scenario where in fact the man is deaf and doesn't know what you want, he's standing aside so that his wife can shout "He's deaf, you idiot! What do you want" and you'd have a chance of hearing her -- only he doesn't know that she just died and has lost her ability to shout.

In other words, being in possession of the facts, you have to make an inference. A closed shop door usually means "We're trying to keep the heat in and the flies out", but a closed house door means "keep out" -- and an open door probably means "we're trying to get some fresh air in here and we don't seem to have an air conditioner".

Philosophy tends to be over-burdened with unreasonable hypotheticals (the "Gettier problem" is a whole class of examples). Sure, it's imaginable that you don't have permission to enter the Tesco (or some house down the road), but given the facts that you know, or should know, you can use reason to infer whether permission has been granted. The fact that you could be wrong, because there is some fact that you don't know, does not invalidate inference itself and does not then reduce life to the absurdly intractable situation where all interactions with men require explicit statements of acceptance.

Are we basically saying that implicit consent changes as rationality or irrationality gains dominance in the public sphere?

No, rather, what is implicitly consented to changes as society changes. We don't need to invoke mass social irrationality for this to be true. Your concern should be "Do I have this person's permission?" or "Have I represented the nature of my offer accurately enough?". The answer to that question has to come from you thinking about what you know. For example, if somebody offers to sell me a new Laptop PC, it would be unimaginable in this day and age that there was no sound card in it, and I would never ask "Does this have a sound card in it?". If it doesn't have a sound card in it, he would tell me. So taking the role of seller, if I have such a soundless computer for sale, I would be morally obliged to say "By the way, this machine doesn't have a sound card in it". In contrast, such a presumption would not have been automatic 15 years ago.

In other words: is the legal basis for implicit consent based on the rational outlook of the mass populous?

No, it is based on looking at the actual facts in a given context. Some of those facts include estimation of other people's attitudes.

To apply this to the porn case, it remains a fact that the vast majority of people strongly oppose being confronted with displays of sexual intercourse while they are out shopping, with or without their children. And this is not surprising news to you, so as a reasonable man, you would conclude that you don't have permission to show pictures of sex acts to random strangers (although you could ask for permission -- it's just not implicitly out there). You would also conclude that since there is no general public aversion to displays of cute kittens, there is no social fact that can be construed as denial of permission to display a cute kitten picture for all of mankind to see.

[Ifat Glassman]

Are you asking whether you have a right to force a person to see or hear things against their will?

Noppers. I am asking you to further clarify your answer to the question "what is the meaning of the right not to look or listen?".

When you replied to that you gave an example about watching sex. However, I am not clear how that one example was an answer to the question; I am not clear if you tried to explain a general principle by an example, or just gave an example for something that belongs in the category of things that require consent (without explaining what qualifies something to be on that category) or if you are suggesting that the meaning of the "right not to look\listen" is the right not to watch a sex act, or something else.

In other words, your answer to that question is not clear, it is not general enough. It is bound to a specific concrete without generalizing it into a principle. So what is the meaning of the right not to look or listen? (in terms of principles).

(Sophia:) All things - no. Some things - yes. Some things require obtaining explicit consent (as per David's argument with which I agree).

Sophia: Is this a partial answer to "what is the meaning of the right not to look or listen?". If so, please explain further how those things that require consent are derived from "the right not to look or listen".

Is this an instance of questioning rational man's ability to clearly define which things rightfully (based on objective standards) belong to the first group rather than to the second?

No. Right now I am not questioning rational man's ability to define those things. I am asking what is the standard. (Just to clarify: I am asking what is the standard, and not to get a list of things that qualify or don't qualify. An example of a list would be: sex qualifies, because it is a personal act. Nudity qualifies, because it means intimacy. Seeing someone eat a bannana does not qualify, because it does not violate anyone's right. Seeing someone spit green stuff qualifies, because it is disgusting and so forth).

Edit: some clarifications

Edited June 29, 2007 by ifatart

[DavidOdden]

When you replied to that you gave an example about watching sex.

Okay; well, the general principle, which follows the sex example, is that choice implies that there are alternatives, so there cannot simply be a "freedom to X", there must also be a "freedom to not X". It would not matter what the specific X is. To bring this back to the basics, by nature man faces alternatives, and man must be free to choose which values he will pursue. For any potential act, man always faces the alternative "act, or don't act". If you're standing in the middle of the freeway and a car is hurtling at you at breakneck speed, you face the alternative of moving or not moving, and saying "I had no choice but to move" is wrong. You had the choice to not act, and you chose to move, probably because it is part of an overarching central purpose of existing and flourishing. It is your right to make that choice (if would also have been your right to instead choose to get creamed), and it would be wrong for another person to prevent you from acting on that choice, by force or fraud.

The discussion is based on the usual assumptions about metaphysical possibility. Hence if you are in the middle of the freeway (I don't know how you got there) and you're paralyzed, then your choice to move doesn't mean that you will actually move. A choice to look at a naked person does not mean that you will see a naked person, if it is dark or you are blind. The concept of "freedom" regards interaction between men, so the "freedom to look" means that no man will prevent you from looking if the thing is metaphysically seeable, and the "freedom to not look" means that no man will force you to see (hear, taste, feel, smell, do).

[KendallJ]

I'm having a little issue with this idea of being cofronted with something. Is the distinguising feature of it that it is in a "public" place or what?

For example I'm unsure that content warnings on something like television programs should be legally mandated (provided as a voluntary service, fine). Isnt the freedom to "NOT X" in that case simply the freedom to turn off your TV set? Why is the freedom to "look away" insufficient?

I'm not disagreeing with the stand, per se, just trying to understand it.

[DavidOdden]

I'm having a little issue with this idea of being cofronted with something. Is the distinguising feature of it that it is in a "public" place or what?

I think there are two separate questions, and one of them has to do with governmentally-controlled property. That's the situation where a person sets up a porn store on downtown Main Street, and the window of his store is covered with bigger than life unmistakable posters of The Deed. With a mall-owner, I could use reason and persuade him to require such displays to be kept inside the store, but with public streets and sidewalks, there's nobody I can reason with, no owner to appeal to. I could put up opaque screens on the sidewalk around the store, just off of the store's property line, so that nobody would have to look at the perverted posters as they go about their business, but since I'm not erecting them on my own property, the porn-peddler could tear them down and we could have a protracted war of screen-erecting and removal. So on top of all of this we have the "what do we do about sidewalks" problem. I think we can do a good job of understanding the fundamentals by focusing on the shopping mall scenario, personally, where the offense reduces to fraudulent representation of goods and services (by the mall management).

Why is the freedom to "look away" insufficient?

It's the fait accompli problem. If you are faced with something that you find disgusting, you certainly should stop looking. The point is that you should not even be put in that involuntary state in the first place. In other words, this isn't about the "right to turn it off", it's about the "right to not have to tune it in in the first place".

[softwareNerd]

The shopping mall example is a good one to chew on, because it's a real example. There are many malls that have stores with displays that stretch some people's notion of what is publicly acceptable in a place where kids of all ages are present, but are quite acceptable by the standards of other people.

An article in the National Review, about a Victoria's Secret store:

Right there amidst the new restaurants, a 16-screen theater, Baby Gap, Talbot’s Kids, and other outlets targeting young families and teenagers, were new window and floor displays, compliments of Victoria’s Secret, entitled, “Backstage Sexy.” According to the local NBC affiliate, it featured “bare-bottomed mannequins in provocative poses and suggestions of bondage.” They were tarted out with rhinestone garters, fishnet stockings, and feathery thongs.

Such store displays would likely be acceptable to many more customers in some areas of the country than others. Also, what many people deem acceptable in public today would probably not have been deemed so by a majority of people (say) five decades ago.

[~Sophia~]

I am asking what is the standard.

As a parent, it is clear to me that at least things which would not be suitable for a child require explicit consent.

[Inspector]

Then Objectivism be damned, I will have no part in it.

I had to calm down for several days before replying to this, but I think I am ready now.

That is a very offensive way of saying what should not be an offensive thing. You should remember that you are a guest on this, a forum for discussing Objectivism, set up by and for people who do think Objectivism is true. Saying what you said in that way is a giant "Screw all of you!" to us.

You could just as easily have said, "If so, then I am not an Objectivist because I disagree with it." Or "if it is Objectivism, then I disagree with that lone aspect of Objectivism." Nothing offensive about that.

Furthermore, how is it that you will have NO part of Objectivism? And why should you wish it "damned?" It seems to me that you will in fact have every part of it except for that one bit. While you may not be an Objectivist, you still agree with the vast majority of the philosophy. It is neither polite, appropriate, nor factually accurate to say that you "will have no part of it."

[Capitalism Forever]

I had to calm down for several days before replying to this, but I think I am ready now.

Really? I had quite the opposite reaction: I was very glad to read that; I remember thinking that it had just made my day. I always love it when people who cannot be reasoned with leave the discussion!

[Ifat Glassman]

It is your right to make that choice (if would also have been your right to instead choose to get creamed), and it would be wrong for another person to prevent you from acting on that choice, by force or fraud.

...

The concept of "freedom" regards interaction between men, so the "freedom to look" means that no man will prevent you from looking if the thing is metaphysically seeable, and the "freedom to not look" means that no man will force you to see (hear, taste, feel, smell, do).

What if someone is showing up in the street in front of my eyes, without warning - Is he not "forcing" me to see him?

(Since his actions leave me no choice but to see him).

I'm sure you will answer "no" to that. So here are the next two questions:

1) Can you define what is "force" in this context? Is every instance of not leaving someone a choice about what to experience - an act of force? (Obviously not)

2) The "force" involved in seeing someone in the street, is the same "force" involved in seeing them naked. Which means, no force at all. It is simply the fact that other people have an affect on you, due to living in society. So what is the force (the same "force" from the definition you will provide) involved with seeing someone naked as opposed to seeing them dressed (while taking under account that it is not the act of leaving them no choice about seeing you)?

As a parent, it is clear to me that at least things which would not be suitable for a child require explicit consent.

Well OK, but it doesn't answer my questions (from the last post where I posted some questions for you).

Really? I had quite the opposite reaction: I was very glad to read that; I remember thinking that it had just made my day. I always love it when people who cannot be reasoned with leave the discussion!

If you have something to say to Michael, why wouldn't you just say it to him? Why share your emotions with all of us? It's irrelevant to the discussion.

[DavidOdden]

1) Can you define what is "force" in this context? Is every instance of not leaving someone a choice about what to experience - an act of force?

Obviously not. Remember though that I am not arguing that the public display of sexual intercourse is an initiation of force (and in my amplification about the concept "freedom to see" and "freedom to not look", I did say "force" but that should be understood to refer to "force or fraud". My intention was not to try to reduce the discussion to a matter of force). The wrong is by the property owner who engages in fraud, by misrepresenting the nature of his mall, so as to gain an unearned value. The distinction would be made abundantly clear to customers who approach the outside of the mall and see a huge sign "Welcome to Bob's Boink Mall -- Live sex acts everywhere you turn!" versus "Welcome to Bob's Shoping Mall -- All of your shopping needs in one place". Now suppose though that in both cases, there are live sex acts everywhere. In the first case, a person entering knows what he is getting into, and is assumed to have agreed to see these live sex acts. In the latter case, a clearly material fact has been omitted in order to gain customers, and that qualifies as fraud.

It is not at all reasonable to assume that people have an aversion to seeing other people in public, similarly, the rationalistic fear of the color purple is so unreaonable as to be effectively unknowable ~ unimaginable, and therefore a mall-owner has no obligation to obtain consent forms or put up warning signs that say "Warning! This mall contains other people. There may be purple objects! Enter at your own risk!" (although... maybe a such a sign could be necessary if you had a mall in a Yazdi village). Some joker can say "But what about me! I hate other people, I demand the freedom from seeing other people, or the color purple". The two relevant social facts are that (1) other people and purple objects are common in public and no reasonable human would expect a customer to care whether there is a purple sign in the mall and (2) the vast majority of people do actually care about sex as a very personal and private expression of value with a loved one, and they will not agree to observing the public destruction / trivialization of this value. Putting the two together, you know that it would matter very much whether sex were unavoidably on display in a mall, that most people would stay away from the mall (and the mall would be financially unviable) if you were to honestly state "There is porn everywhere you look here!". To leave that well-known clearly material fact out is fraud. Because there simply is no social fact that people can't bear to see other people or the color purple, making that fact generally known is not important: a reasonable man would not conclude that the presence of purple would cause people to elect to stay out of his mall, and thus he has reason to put up signs warning people of the innumerable true but irrelevant facts about his mall. Not even "Warning, this mall contains way too many shoe stores".

[There are variants of this where the fraud is perpetrated by the shop owner if acts without the permission of the mall-owner, and the discussion gets more complicated when we talk about government controlled property, but we have to understand the foundation before moving to the margins. Another complication that has to be dealt with it the very important point raised by Sophia, regarding the impossibility of obtaining consent from children].