Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 921

529US3

Unit: $U60

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

846

UNITED STATES v. PLAYBOY ENTERTAINMENT
GROUP, INC.
Breyer, J., dissenting

ally explicit” material—is “compelling.” The record shows
no similarly effective, less restrictive alternative. Conse-
quently § 505’s restriction, viewed in light of the proposed
alternative, is proportionate to need. That is to say, it re-
stricts speech no more than necessary to further that com-
pelling need. Taken together, these considerations lead to
the conclusion that § 505 is lawful.

I repeat that my disagreement with the majority lies in
the fact that, in my view, the Government has satisﬁed its
burden of proof.
In particular, it has proved both the exist-
ence of a serious problem and the comparative ineffective-
ness of § 504 in resolving that problem. This disagreement
is not about allocation of First Amendment burdens of proof,
basic First Amendment principle, nor the importance of that
Amendment to our scheme of Government. See ante, at
826–827. First Amendment standards are rigorous. They
safeguard speech. But they also permit Congress to enact
a law that increases the costs associated with certain speech,
where doing so serves a compelling interest that cannot be
served through the adoption of a less restrictive, similarly
effective alternative. Those standards at their strictest
make it difﬁcult for the Government to prevail. But they
do not make it impossible for the Government to prevail.

The majority here, however, has applied those standards
without making a realistic assessment of the alternatives.
It thereby threatens to leave Congress without power to
help the millions of parents who do not want to expose their
children to commercial pornography—but will remain ill
served by the Court’s chosen remedy. Worse still, the logic
of the majority’s “505/504” comparison (but not its holding
that the problem has not been established) would seem to
apply whether “bleeding” or totally unscrambled transmis-
sion is at issue.
If so, the public would have to depend solely
upon the voluntary conduct of cable channel operators to
avert considerably greater harm.