Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 913.0

529US3

Unit: $U60

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

838

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

standable manner,” § 504(c)—amounts to transmission into
a home. Hence “bleeding” violates the statute whenever
a clear transmission of an unrequested adult channel would
violate the statute.

.

Second, the majority’s characterization of this statutory
. speech” is an exaggeration.
scheme as “prohibit[ing] .
Ante, at 812. Rather, the statute places a burden on adult
channel speech by requiring the relevant cable operator
either to use better scrambling technology, or, if that technol-
ogy is too expensive, to broadcast only between 10 p.m. and
6 a.m. Laws that burden speech, say, by making speech less
proﬁtable, may create serious First Amendment issues, but
they are not the equivalent of an absolute ban on speech
itself. Cf. Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528
U. S. 377 (2000). Thus, this Court has upheld laws that do
not ban the access of adults to sexually explicit speech, but
burden that access through geographical or temporal zoning.
See, e. g., Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41
(1986); FCC v. Paciﬁca Foundation, 438 U. S. 726 (1978);
Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50 (1976).
This Court has also recognized that material the First
Amendment guarantees adults the right to see may not be
suitable for children. And it has consequently held that leg-
islatures maintain a limited power to protect children by re-
stricting access to, but not banning, adult material. Com-
pare Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629 (1968) (upholding
ban on sale of pornographic magazines to minors), with But-
ler v. Michigan, 352 U. S. 380 (1957) (invalidating ban on all
books unﬁt for minors); see also Denver Area Ed. Telecom-
munications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U. S. 727, 737–753
(1996) (plurality opinion); Paciﬁca Foundation, supra, at
748–750; Reno, supra, at 887–889 (O’Connor, J., concurring
in part and dissenting in part). The difference—between
imposing a burden and enacting a ban—can matter even
when strict First Amendment rules are at issue.