Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 920

529US3

Unit: $U60

[09-26-01 12:39:05] PAGES PGT: OPIN

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

845

Breyer, J., dissenting

the fact that Playboy, presumably aware of its own economic
interests, “is willing to incur the costs of an effective § 504.”
Ante, at 824. Yet that denial, as the majority admits, may
simply reﬂect Playboy’s knowledge that § 504, even with bet-
ter notice, will not work. Section 504 is not a similarly ef-
fective alternative to § 505 (in respect to the Government’s
interest in protecting children), unless more than a minimal
number of viewers actually use it; yet the economic evidence
shows that if more than 6% do so, Playboy’s programming
would be totally eliminated. The majority provides no an-
swer to this argument in its opinion—and this evidence is
sufﬁcient in and of itself to dispose of this case.

Of course, it is logically possible that “better notice” will
bring about near perfect parental knowledge (of what chil-
dren watch and § 504 opt-out rights), that cable operators
will respond rapidly to blocking requests, and that still 94%
of all informed parents will decided not to have adult chan-
nels blocked for free. But the probability that this remote
possibility will occur is neither a “draw” nor a “tie.” Ante,
at 819. And that fact is sufﬁcient for the Government to
have met its burden of proof.

All these considerations show that § 504’s opt-out, even
with the Court’s plan for “better notice,” is not similarly ef-
fective in achieving the legitimate goals that the statute was
enacted to serve.

IV

Section 505 raises the cost of adult channel broadcasting.
In doing so, it restricts, but does not ban, adult speech.
Adults may continue to watch adult channels, though less
conveniently, by watching at night, recording programs with
a VCR, or by subscribing to digital cable with better block-
ing systems. Cf. Renton, 475 U. S., at 53–55 (upholding zon-
ing rules that force potential adult theater patrons to travel
to less convenient locations). The Government’s justiﬁ-
cation for imposing this restriction—limiting the access of
children to channels that broadcast virtually 100% “sexu-