Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 640

524US2

Unit: $U95

[09-06-00 18:40:44] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 569 (1998)

595

Scalia, J., concurring in judgment

if we are surveying the scene of an accident; each one is
reviewed, not on the basis of how much worse it could have
been, but on the basis of what it says. See United States
v. Estate of Romani, 523 U. S. 519, 535 (1998) (Scalia, J.,
concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
It matters
not whether this enactment was the product of the most par-
tisan alignment in history or whether, upon its passage, the
Members all linked arms and sang, “The more we get to-
It is “not consonant with our
gether, the happier we’ll be.”
scheme of government for a court to inquire into the motives
of legislators.” Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 377
(1951). The law at issue in this case is to be found in the
text of § 954(d)(1), which passed both Houses and was signed
by the President, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 7. And that law
unquestionably disfavors—discriminates against—indecency
and disrespect for the diverse beliefs and values of the
I turn, then, to whether such viewpoint
American people.
discrimination violates the Constitution.

II
What The Statute Says Is Constitutional

The Court devotes so much of its opinion to explaining
why this statute means something other than what it says
that it neglects to cite the constitutional text governing our
analysis. The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall
make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” U. S.
Const., Amdt. 1 (emphasis added). To abridge is “to con-
tract, to diminish; to deprive of.” T. Sheridan, A Complete
Dictionary of the English Language (6th ed. 1796). With
the enactment of § 954(d)(1), Congress did not abridge the
speech of those who disdain the beliefs and values of the
American public, nor did it abridge indecent speech. Those
who wish to create indecent and disrespectful art are as un-
constrained now as they were before the enactment of this
statute. Avant-garde artistes such as respondents remain