Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 880.0

529US3

Unit: $U60

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

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

805

Syllabus

or how serious the problem is. There is no proof as to how likely any
child is to view a discernible explicit image, and no proof of the duration
of the bleed or the quality of the pictures or sound. Under § 505, sanc-
tionable signal bleed can include instances as ﬂeeting as an image ap-
pearing on a screen for just a few seconds. The First Amendment re-
quires a more careful assessment and characterization of an evil in order
to justify a regulation as sweeping as this. The Government has failed
to establish a pervasive, nationwide problem justifying its nationwide
daytime speech ban. The Government also failed to prove § 504, with
adequate notice, would be ineffective. There is no evidence that a
well-promoted voluntary blocking provision would not be capable at
least of informing parents about signal bleed (if they are not yet aware
of it) and about their rights to have the bleed blocked (if they consider
it a problem and have not yet controlled it themselves). A court should
not assume a plausible, less restrictive alternative would be ineffective;
and a court should not presume parents, given full information, will fail
to act. The Government also argues society’s independent interests
will be unserved if parents fail to act on that information. Even upon
the assumption that the Government has an interest in substituting it-
self for informed and empowered parents, its interest is not sufﬁciently
compelling to justify this widespread restriction on speech. The regu-
latory alternative of a publicized § 504, which has the real possibility of
promoting more open disclosure and the choice of an effective blocking
system, would provide parents the information needed to engage in ac-
tive supervision. The Government has not shown that this alternative
would be insufﬁcient to secure its objective, or that any overriding harm
justiﬁes its intervention. Although, under a voluntary blocking regime,
even with adequate notice, some children will be exposed to signal
bleed, children will also be exposed under time channeling, which does
not eliminate signal bleed around the clock. The record is silent as to
the comparative effectiveness of the two alternatives. Pp. 816–826.

30 F. Supp. 2d 702, afﬁrmed.

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens,
Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., post, p. 828,
and Thomas, J., post, p. 829, ﬁled concurring opinions. Scalia, J., ﬁled
a dissenting opinion, post, p. 831. Breyer, J., ﬁled a dissenting opinion,
in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor and Scalia, JJ., joined, post,
p. 835.

James A. Feldman argued the cause for appellants. With
him on the briefs were Solicitor General Waxman, Acting