Do restrictions on nudity and sex visible to others violate rights?

Ayn Rand in "Thought Control"

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 . . .

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. This protects the unconsenting, and has nothing to do with censorship, i.e., with prohibiting thought or speech.

The Ayn Rand Letter “Thought Control,” The Ayn Rand Letter, III, 2, 2.

That's also quoted here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_speech.html

Here's the original discussion: http://boards.atlantafalcons.com/topic/3924856-are-truck-nuts-free-speech/

Peikoff chimed in on a different case, similar concept:

http://media.blubrry.com/peikoff/www.peikoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/2011-08-08.176_B_01.L.mp3