Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 899

529US3

Unit: $U60

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

824

UNITED STATES v. PLAYBOY ENTERTAINMENT
GROUP, INC.
Opinion of the Court

tion. Given the existence of a less restrictive means, if the
Legislature wished to improve its statute, perhaps in the
process giving careful consideration to other alternatives, it
then could do so.

The Government also contends a publicized § 504 will be
just as restrictive as § 505, on the theory that the cost of
installing blocking devices will outstrip the revenues from
distributing Playboy’s programming and lead to its cancella-
tion. See 30 F. Supp. 2d, at 713. This conclusion rests on
the assumption that a sufﬁcient percentage of households,
informed of the potential for signal bleed, would consider it
enough of a problem to order blocking devices—an assump-
Id., at 719.
tion for which there is no support in the record.
It should be noted, furthermore, that Playboy is willing to
incur the costs of an effective § 504. One might infer that
Playboy believes an advertised § 504 will be ineffective for
its object, or one might infer the company believes the signal
bleed problem is not widespread.
In the absence of proof,
it is not for the Court to assume the former.

It is no response that voluntary blocking requires a con-
sumer to take action, or may be inconvenient, or may not go
perfectly every time. A court should not assume a plausi-
ble, less restrictive alternative would be ineffective; and a
court should not presume parents, given full information,
If unresponsive operators are a concern,
will fail to act.
moreover, a notice statute could give cable operators ample
incentive, through ﬁnes or other penalties for noncompliance,
to respond to blocking requests in prompt and efﬁcient
fashion.

Having adduced no evidence in the District Court showing
that an adequately advertised § 504 would not be effective to
aid desirous parents in keeping signal bleed out of their own
households, the Government can now cite nothing in the rec-
ord to support the point. The Government instead takes
quite a different approach. After only an offhand sugges-
tion that the success of a well-communicated § 504 is “highly