4.2.12 WC: 191694 Judge Aldrich immediately expressed skepticism about the reach of my argument, suggesting that the Stanley decision wasn’t relevant to a movie theater. He told me about his grandmother who “once went to a movie entitled Sur Les Troits de Paris. She thought it was a travelogue. She didn’t after she got there of course...I heard about it.” I assured him that we had dealt with that problem by providing a “prologue” that advises the audience who are admitted only before the film begins what they are about to see: “the story of a young girl who is trying to work out her relationships. There are a number of scenes which show the young girl and her lover nude. Several scenes depict sexual intercourse under various circumstances, some of them quite unusual. If you believe that you would be offended or embarrassed by the showing of such scenes, you are invited at this time to obtain a refund of your admission at the box office.” As Judge Aldrich continued to press me about his grandmother’s sensibilities, I was reminded of the old Jewish joke about the man with the broken watch who goes into a storefront window and asks the man behind the counter to fix his watch. “I don’t fix watches. I perform circumcisions,” the man replied. “Then why do you have clocks and watches in your window,” the customer wondered. “What do you think I should put in my window?” the store owner responded. I had that joke in my head when I offered the following argument to Judge Aldrich: If a store were to open in Boston which was simply marked “Pornography Shop,” it had nothing in the window, it had no advertising, it was a place where people like Stanley could come and quietly and discreetly purchase their 8mm films, [I submit] that Stanley vs. Georgia would proscribe prosecution of that seller. I submit that necessarily if there is this right to exercise one’s freedom to read and see a film, there is necessarily the concomitant right to purchase it. But the state has a