Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 878

529US3

Unit: $U60

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

OCTOBER TERM, 1999

803

Syllabus

UNITED STATES et al. v. PLAYBOY ENTERTAIN-
MENT GROUP, INC.

appeal from the united states district court for the
district of delaware

No. 98–1682. Argued November 30, 1999—Decided May 22, 2000

Section 505 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires cable televi-
sion operators providing channels “primarily dedicated to sexually-
oriented programming” either to “fully scramble or otherwise fully
block” those channels or to limit their transmission to hours when chil-
dren are unlikely to be viewing, set by administrative regulation as
between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Even before § 505’s enactment, cable opera-
tors used signal scrambling to limit access to certain programs to paying
customers. Scrambling could be imprecise, however; and either or both
audio and visual portions of the scrambled programs might be heard or
seen, a phenomenon known as “signal bleed.” The purpose of § 505 is
to shield children from hearing or seeing images resulting from signal
bleed. To comply with § 505, the majority of cable operators adopted
the “time channeling” approach, so that, for two-thirds of the day, no
viewers in their service areas could receive the programming in ques-
tion. Appellee Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., ﬁled this suit chal-
lenging § 505’s constitutionality. A three-judge District Court con-
cluded that § 505’s content-based restriction on speech violates the First
Amendment because the Government might further its interests in less
restrictive ways. One plausible, less restrictive alternative could be
found in § 504 of the Act, which requires a cable operator, “[u]pon re-
quest by a cable service subscriber . . . without charge, [to] fully scram-
ble or otherwise fully block” any channel the subscriber does not wish
to receive. As long as subscribers knew about this opportunity, the
court reasoned, § 504 would provide as much protection against un-
wanted programming as would § 505.

Held: Because the Government failed to prove § 505 is the least restrictive
means for addressing a real problem, the District Court did not err in
holding the statute violative of the First Amendment. Pp. 811–827.

(a) Two points should be understood: (1) Many adults would ﬁnd the
material at issue highly offensive, and considering that the material
comes unwanted into homes where children might see or hear it against
parental wishes or consent, there are legitimate reasons for regulating
it; and (2) Playboy’s programming has First Amendment protection.