Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 900

529US3

Unit: $U60

[09-26-01 12:39:04] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 803 (2000)

825

Opinion of the Court

unlikely,” the Government sets the point aside, arguing in-
stead that society’s independent interests will be unserved if
parents fail to act on that information. Brief for Appellants
32–33 (“[U]nder . . . an enhanced version of Section 504, par-
ents who had strong feelings about the matter could see to
it that their children did not view signal bleed—at least in
their own homes”); id., at 33 (“Even an enhanced version of
Section 504 would succeed in blocking signal bleed only if,
and after, parents afﬁrmatively decided to avail themselves
of the means offered them to do so. There would certainly
be parents—perhaps a large number of parents—who out of
inertia, indifference, or distraction, simply would take no ac-
tion to block signal bleed, even if fully informed of the prob-
lem and even if offered a relatively easy solution”); Reply
Brief for Appellants 12 (“[Society’s] interest would of course
be served in instances . . . in which parents request blocking
under an enhanced Section 504. But in cases in which par-
ents fail to make use of an enhanced Section 504 procedure
out of distraction, inertia, or indifference, Section 505 would
be the only means to protect society’s independent interest”).
Even upon the assumption that the Government has an
interest in substituting itself for informed and empowered
parents, its interest is not sufﬁciently compelling to justify
this widespread restriction on speech. The Government’s
argument stems from the idea that parents do not know their
children are viewing the material on a scale or frequency
to cause concern, or if so, that parents do not want to take
afﬁrmative steps to block it and their decisions are to be
superseded. The assumptions have not been established;
and in any event the assumptions apply only in a regime
where the option of blocking has not been explained. The
whole point of a publicized § 504 would be to advise parents
that indecent material may be shown and to afford them an
opportunity to block it at all times, even when they are not
at home and even after 10 p.m. Time channeling does not
offer this assistance. The regulatory alternative of a publi-