My feeling is that it should be available but not forced. It is therapeutic for many people I think. It can help people deal with their questions about reality and morality. There are arguments for and against protecting art, and nudity in art as well as violence. For some people art is therapeutic. For others its alarming. It communicates, and it also lets us deal with fears and urges. It can also produce fears. Some people have little control over their visual imaginations. Others have great control. Putting it into someone's face is like yelling at them. Putting it into a book with a cover is not.
Filling the grocery store isle with women in swimsuits was always in bad taste and continues to be. It was disrespectful of the people who mostly didn't want it there and didn't want their children looking at it in the grocery isle. That was a forced imposition of pornography.
Why did that come about? It came about as a reaction partly against people who tried to shut pornography down completely and make blue laws. It was and continues to be part of a heated argument between those who want to illegalize everything including art, alcohol and drugs; and those who want prohibitions relaxed. Currently that battle rages in the public sphere. Those in favor of art and freedom want to make sure people know what is at stake, because otherwise it might be taken away or made illegal. That mean pushing the mediums into places where people don't want them.
