Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 914

529US3

Unit: $U60

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

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

839

Breyer, J., dissenting

Third, this case concerns only the regulation of commercial
actors who broadcast “virtually 100% sexually explicit” ma-
terial.
30 F. Supp. 2d 702, 707 (Del. 1998). The channels
do not broadcast more than trivial amounts of more serious
material such as birth control information, artistic images,
or the visual equivalents of classical or serious literature.
This case therefore does not present the kind of narrow tai-
loring concerns seen in other cases. See, e. g., Reno, 521
U. S., at 877–879 (“The breadth of the [statutue’s] coverage
is wholly unprecedented. . . . [It] cover[s] large amounts of
nonpornographic material with serious educational or other
value”); Butler, supra, at 381–384 (invalidating ban on books
“ ‘tending to the corruption of the morals of youth’ ”).

With this background in mind, the reader will better un-
derstand my basic disagreement with each of the Court’s
two conclusions.

II

The majority ﬁrst concludes that the Government failed to
prove the seriousness of the problem—receipt of adult chan-
nels by children whose parents did not request their broad-
cast. Ante, at 819–822. This claim is ﬂat-out wrong. For
one thing, the parties concede that basic RF scrambling does
not scramble the audio portion of the program. 30 F. Supp.
2d, at 707. For another, Playboy itself conducted a survey
of cable operators who were asked: “Is your system in full
compliance with Section 505 (no discernible audio or video
bleed)?” To this question, 75% of cable operators answered
“no.” See Def. Exh. 254, 2 Record 2. Further, the Govern-
ment’s expert took the number of homes subscribing to Play-
boy or Spice, multiplied by the fraction of cable households
with children and the average number of children per house-
hold, and found 29 million children are potentially exposed
to audio and video bleed from adult programming. Def.
Exh. 82, 10 Record 11–12. Even discounting by 25% for sys-
tems that might be considered in full compliance, this left 22