Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 897.0

529US3

Unit: $U60

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

822

UNITED STATES v. PLAYBOY ENTERTAINMENT
GROUP, INC.
Opinion of the Court

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U. S. 180, 187
(1997) (reviewing “ ‘a record of tens of thousands of pages’ of
evidence” developed through “three years of pre-enactment
hearings, . . . as well as additional expert submissions, sworn
declarations and testimony, and industry documents” in sup-
port of complex must-carry provisions).
If the number of
children transﬁxed by even ﬂickering pornographic televi-
sion images in fact reached into the millions we, like the
District Court, would have expected to be directed to more
than a handful of complaints.

No support for the restriction can be found in the near
barren legislative record relevant to this provision. Section
505 was added to the Act by ﬂoor amendment, accompanied
by only brief statements, and without committee hearing or
debate. See 141 Cong. Rec. 15586–15589 (1995). One of the
measure’s sponsors did indicate she considered time channel-
ing to be superior to voluntary blocking, which “put[s] the
burden of action on the subscriber, not the cable company.”
Id., at 15587 (statement of Sen. Feinstein). This sole conclu-
sory statement, however, tells little about the relative efﬁ-
cacy of voluntary blocking versus time channeling, other
than offering the unhelpful, self-evident generality that vol-
untary measures require voluntary action. The Court has
declined to rely on similar evidence before. See Sable Com-
munications, 492 U. S., at 129–130 (“[A]side from conclusory
statements during the debates by proponents of the bill, . . .
the congressional record presented to us contains no evi-
dence as to how effective or ineffective the . . . regulations
were or might prove to be” (footnote omitted)); Reno, 521
U. S., at 858, and n. 24, 875–876, n. 41 (same). This is not to
suggest that a 10,000-page record must be compiled in every
case or that the Government must delay in acting to address
a real problem; but the Government must present more than
anecdote and supposition. The question is whether an ac-
tual problem has been proved in this case. We agree that