Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 898

529US3

Unit: $U60

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

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

823

Opinion of the Court

the Government has failed to establish a pervasive, nation-
wide problem justifying its nationwide daytime speech ban.
Nor did the District Court err in its second conclusion.
The Government also failed to prove § 504 with adequate no-
tice would be an ineffective alternative to § 505. Once again,
the District Court invited the Government to produce its
proof. See 945 F. Supp., at 781 (“If the § 504 blocking option
is not being promoted, it cannot become a meaningful alter-
native to the provisions of § 505. At the time of the perma-
nent injunction hearing, further evidence of the actual and
predicted impact and efﬁcacy of § 504 would be helpful
to us”). Once again, the Government fell short. See 30
F. Supp. 2d, at 719 (“[The Government’s argument that § 504
is ineffective] is premised on adequate notice to subscribers.
It is not clear, however, from the record that notices of the
provisions of § 504 have been adequate”). There is no evi-
dence that a well-promoted voluntary blocking provision
would not be capable at least of informing parents about sig-
nal 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).

The Government ﬁnds at least two problems with the con-
clusion of the three-judge District Court. First, the Gov-
ernment takes issue with the District Court’s reliance, with-
out proof, on a “hypothetical, enhanced version of Section
504.” Brief for Appellants 32.
It was not the District
Court’s obligation, however, to predict the extent to which
It was for
an improved notice scheme would improve § 504.
the Government, presented with a plausible, less restrictive
alternative, to prove the alternative to be ineffective, and
§ 505 to be the least restrictive available means.
Indeed, to
the extent the District Court erred, it was only in attempting
to implement the less restrictive alternative through judicial
decree by requiring Playboy to provide for expanded notice
in its cable service contracts. The appropriate remedy was
not to repair the statute, it was to enjoin the speech restric-