Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 912.0

529US3

Unit: $U60

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

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

837

Breyer, J., dissenting

In 1995, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the present statute’s
legislative cosponsor, pointed out that “numerous cable oper-
ators across the country are still automatically broadcast-
ing sexually explicit programming into households across
America, regardless of whether parents want this or sub-
scribers want it.” 141 Cong. Rec. 15588. She complained
that the “industry has only taken baby steps to address this
problem through voluntary policies that simply recommend
action,” ibid., adding that the “problem is that there are no
uniform laws or regulations that govern such sexually ex-
plicit adult programming on cable television,” id., at 15587.
She consequently proposed, and Congress enacted, the pres-
ent statute.

The statute is carefully tailored to respect viewer prefer-
ences.
It regulates transmissions by creating two “default
rules” applicable unless the subscriber decides otherwise.
Section 504 requires a cable operator to “fully scramble” any
channel (whether or not it broadcasts adult programming) if
a subscriber asks not to receive it. Section 505 requires a
cable operator to “fully scramble” every adult channel unless
a subscriber asks to receive it. Taken together, the two pro-
visions create a scheme that permits subscribers to choose
to see what they want. But each law creates a different
“default” assumption about silent subscribers. Section 504
assumes a silent subscriber wants to see the ordinary (non-
adult) channels that the cable operator includes in the paid-
for bundle sent into the home. Section 505 assumes that a
silent subscriber does not want to receive adult channels.
Consequently, a subscriber wishing to view an adult channel
must “opt in,” and speciﬁcally request that channel. See
§ 505. A subscriber wishing not to view any other channel
(sent into the home) must “opt out.” See § 504.

The scheme addresses signal bleed but only indirectly.
From the statute’s perspective signal “bleeding”—i. e., a fail-
ure to fully “rearrange the content of the signal . . . so that
the programming cannot be viewed or heard in an under-