Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 911

529US3

Unit: $U60

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

836

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

The basic, applicable First Amendment principles are not
at issue. The Court must examine the statute before us
with great care to determine whether its speech-related re-
strictions are justiﬁed by a “compelling interest,” namely,
an interest in limiting children’s access to sexually explicit
In doing so, it recognizes that the Legislature
material.
must respect adults’ viewing freedom by “narrowly tailor-
ing” the statute so that it restricts no more speech than nec-
essary, and choosing instead any alternative that would fur-
ther the compelling interest in a “less restrictive” but “at
least as effective” way. See ante, at 813; Reno v. American
Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 874 (1997).

Applying these principles, the majority invalidates § 505
for two reasons.
It ﬁnds that (1) the “Government has failed
to establish a pervasive, nationwide problem justifying its
nationwide daytime speech ban,” ante, at 823, and (2) the
“Government . . . failed to prove” the “ineffective[ness]” of
an alternative, namely, notiﬁed viewers requesting that the
broadcaster of sexually explicit material stop sending it,
In my view, the record supports neither reason.
ibid.

I

federal

At the outset, I would describe the statutory scheme
I would em-
somewhat differently than does the majority.
phasize three background points. First,
the statutory
scheme reﬂects more than a congressional effort to control
incomplete scrambling. Previously,
law had left
cable operators free to decide whether, when, and how to
transmit adult channels. Most channel operators on their
own had decided not to send adult channels into a subscrib-
er’s home except on request. But the operators then imple-
mented that decision with inexpensive technology. Through
signal “bleeding,” the scrambling technology (either inad-
vertently or by way of enticement) allowed nonsubscribers
to see and hear what was going on. That is why Congress
decided to act.