Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 885.0

529US3

Unit: $U60

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

810

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

scramble or otherwise fully block” any channel the sub-
scriber does not wish to receive. 110 Stat. 136, 47 U. S. C.
§ 560 (1994 ed., Supp. III). As long as subscribers knew
about this opportunity, the court reasoned, § 504 would pro-
vide as much protection against unwanted programming as
30 F. Supp. 2d, at 718–720. At the same time,
would § 505.
§ 504 was content neutral and would be less restrictive of
Playboy’s First Amendment rights.

Ibid.

The court described what “adequate notice” would in-

clude, suggesting

“[operators] should communicate to their subscribers the
information that certain channels broadcast sexually-
oriented programming; that signal bleed . . . may appear;
that children may view signal bleed without their par-
ents’ knowledge or permission; that channel blocking
devices . . . are available free of charge . . . ; and that a
request for a free device . . . can be made by a telephone
call to the [operator].”

Id., at 719.

The means of providing this notice could include

“inserts in monthly billing statements, barker channels
(preview channels of programming coming up on Pay-
Per-View), and on-air advertisement on channels other
than the one broadcasting the sexually explicit program-
ming.”

Ibid.

The court added that this notice could be “conveyed on a
regular basis, at reasonable intervals,” and could include no-
tice of changes in channel alignments.

Ibid.

The District Court concluded that § 504 so supplemented
would be an effective, less restrictive alternative to § 505,
and consequently declared § 505 unconstitutional and en-
Id., at 719–720. The court also re-
joined its enforcement.
quired Playboy to insist on these notice provisions in its con-
tracts with cable operators.

Ibid.
The United States ﬁled a direct appeal in this Court pursu-
ant to § 561. The District Court thereafter dismissed for