Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 886.0

529US3

Unit: $U60

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

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

811

Opinion of the Court

lack of jurisdiction two post-trial motions ﬁled by the Gov-
ernment. App. to Juris. Statement 91a–92a. We noted
probable jurisdiction, 527 U. S. 1021 (1999), and now afﬁrm.

II

Two essential points should be understood concerning the
speech at issue here. First, we shall assume that many
adults themselves would ﬁnd the material highly offensive;
and when we consider the further circumstance that the ma-
terial comes unwanted into homes where children might see
or hear it against parental wishes or consent, there are legiti-
mate reasons for regulating it. Second, all parties bring the
case to us on the premise that Playboy’s programming has
First Amendment protection. As this case has been liti-
gated, it is not alleged to be obscene; adults have a constitu-
tional right to view it; the Government disclaims any interest
in preventing children from seeing or hearing it with the
consent of their parents; and Playboy has concomitant rights
under the First Amendment to transmit it. These points
are undisputed.

The speech in question is deﬁned by its content; and the
statute which seeks to restrict it is content based. Section
505 applies only to channels primarily dedicated to “sexually
explicit adult programming or other programming that is in-
decent.” The statute is unconcerned with signal bleed from
any other channels. See 945 F. Supp., at 785 (“[Section 505]
does not apply when signal bleed occurs on other premium
channel networks, like HBO or the Disney Channel”). The
overriding justiﬁcation for the regulation is concern for the
effect of the subject matter on young viewers. Section 505
is not “ ‘justiﬁed without reference to the content of the reg-
ulated speech.’ ” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S.
781, 791 (1989) (quoting Clark v. Community for Creative
Non-Violence, 468 U. S. 288, 293 (1984)).
It “focuses only
on the content of the speech and the direct impact that
speech has on its listeners.” Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312,