Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-302_e29g.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

Cite as:  588 U. S. ____ (2019) 

3 

Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. 

mean something similar to “immoral” and thus favor some 
viewpoints  over  others.    See  ante,  at  6.  But  it  does  not 
have to be read that way.  To say that a word or image is
“scandalous”  can  instead  mean  that  it  is  simply  indecent,
shocking,  or  generally  offensive.  See  Funk  &  Wagnalls 
New Standard Dictionary 2186 (1944) (Funk & Wagnalls) 
(“shocking  to  the  sense  of  truth,  decency,  or  propriety;
disgraceful,  offensive”  (emphasis  added));  Webster’s  New 
International  Dictionary  2229  (1942)  (“exciting  reproba-
tion; calling out condemnation”); 9 Oxford English Diction-
ary 175 (1933) (“Of the nature of, or causing, a ‘stumbling-
block’  or  occasion  of  offence”);  8  Century  Dictionary
and  Cyclopedia  5374  (1911)  (Century  Dictionary)  (“Caus-
ing  scandal  or  offense;  exciting  reproach  or  reprobation;
extremely  offensive  to  the  sense  of  duty  or  propriety;
shameful;  shocking”);  see  also  Webster’s  New  College
Dictionary  1008  (3d  ed.  2005)  (“shocking  or  offensive”). 
That offensiveness could result from the views expressed, 
but it could also result from the way in which those views 
are  expressed:  using  a  manner  of  expression  that  is 
“shocking  to  [one’s]  sense  of  . . .  decency,”  Funk  &  Wag-
nalls  2186,  or  “extremely  offensive  to  the  sense  of  . . . 
propriety,” 8 Century Dictionary 5374. 

The  word  “scandalous”  on  its  own,  then,  is  ambiguous: 
It  can  be  read  broadly  (to  cover  both  offensive  ideas  and 
offensive  manners  of  expressing  ideas),  or  it  can  be  read 
narrowly  (to  cover  only  offensive  modes  of  expression). 
That  alone  raises  the  possibility  that  a  limiting  construc-
tion might be appropriate.  But the broader text confirms 
the  reasonableness  of  the  narrower  reading,  because  the 
word  “scandalous”  appears  in  the  statute  alongside  other 
words that can, and should, be read to constrain its scope.

It  is  foundational  “that  a  statute  is  to  be  read  as  a 
whole,  since  the  meaning  of  statutory  language,  plain  or
not,  depends  on  context.”  King  v.  St.  Vincent’s  Hospital, 
502  U. S.  215,  221  (1991)  (citation  omitted).    “ ‘Words  are