Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 890.0

529US3

Unit: $U60

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

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

815

Opinion of the Court

tions and Reno, for instance, also note the afﬁrmative steps
necessary to obtain access to indecent material via the media
at issue—but they provide necessary instruction for comply-
ing with accepted First Amendment principles.

Our zoning cases, on the other hand, are irrelevant to the
question here. Post, at 838 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (citing
Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41 (1986), and
Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50 (1976)).
We have made clear that the lesser scrutiny afforded regula-
tions targeting the secondary effects of crime or declining
property values has no application to content-based regula-
tions targeting the primary effects of protected speech.
Reno, supra, at 867–868; Boos, 485 U. S., at 320–321. The
statute now before us burdens speech because of its content;
it must receive strict scrutiny.

There is, moreover, a key difference between cable televi-
sion and the broadcasting media, which is the point on which
this case turns: Cable systems have the capacity to block
unwanted channels on a household-by-household basis. The
option to block reduces the likelihood, so concerning to the
Court in Paciﬁca, supra, at 744, that traditional First
Amendment scrutiny would deprive the Government of all
authority to address this sort of problem. The corollary, of
course, is that targeted blocking enables the Government to
support parental authority without affecting the First
Amendment interests of speakers and willing listeners—lis-
teners for whom, if the speech is unpopular or indecent, the
privacy of their own homes may be the optimal place of re-
ceipt. Simply put, targeted blocking is less restrictive than
banning, and the Government cannot ban speech if targeted
blocking is a feasible and effective means of furthering its
compelling interests. This is not to say that the absence of
an effective blocking mechanism will in all cases sufﬁce to
support a law restricting the speech in question; but if a less
restrictive means is available for the Government to achieve
its goals, the Government must use it.