Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 918

529US3

Unit: $U60

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

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

843

Breyer, J., dissenting

minors from accessing sexually explicit materials in the ab-
sence of parental supervision. See Ginsberg, supra, at 640.
By deﬁnition, § 504 does nothing at all to further the com-
pelling interest I have just described. How then is it a simi-
larly effective § 505 alternative?

The record, moreover, sets forth empirical evidence show-
ing that the two laws are not equivalent with respect to the
Government’s objectives. As the majority observes, during
the 14 months the Government was enjoined from enforcing
§ 505, “fewer than 0.5% of cable subscribers requested full
blocking” under § 504. Ante, at 816. The majority de-
scribes this public reaction as “a collective yawn,” ibid., add-
ing that the Government failed to prove that the “yawn” re-
ﬂected anything other than the lack of a serious signal bleed
problem or a lack of notice which better information about
§ 504 might cure. The record excludes the ﬁrst possibility—
at least in respect to exposure, as discussed above. See
supra, at 839–840. And I doubt that the public, though it
may well consider the viewing habits of adults a matter of
personal choice, would “yawn” when the exposure in ques-
tion concerns young children, the absence of parental con-
sent, and the sexually explicit material here at issue. See
ante, at 833–834 (Scalia, J., dissenting).

Neither is the record neutral in respect to the curative
power of better notice. Section 504’s opt-out right works
only when parents (1) become aware of their § 504 rights, (2)
discover that their children are watching sexually explicit
signal “bleed,” (3) reach their cable operator and ask that it
block the sending of its signal to their home, (4) await instal-
lation of an individual blocking device, and, perhaps (5)
(where the block fails or the channel number changes) make
a new request. Better notice of § 504 rights does little to
help parents discover their children’s viewing habits (step 2).
And it does nothing at all in respect to steps 3 through 5.
Yet the record contains considerable evidence that those
problems matter, i. e., evidence of endlessly delayed phone