UNITED STATES et.docx

UNITED STATES et.docx

《UNITED STATES et.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《UNITED STATES et.docx（39页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

UNITEDSTATESet

UNITEDSTATESet al.v.PLAYBOYENTERTAINMENTGROUP,INC.

appealfromtheunitedstatesdistrictcourtforthedistrictofdelaware

No.98-1682.ArguedNovember30,1999--DecidedMay22,2000

Section505oftheTelecommunicationsActof1996requirescabletelevisionoperatorsprovidingchannels"primarilydedicatedtosexually-orientedprogramming"eitherto"fullyscrambleorotherwisefullyblock"thosechannelsortolimittheirtransmissiontohourswhenchildrenareunlikelytobeviewing,setbyadministrativeregulationasbetween10p.m.and6a.m.Evenbefore§505'senactment,cableoperatorsusedsignalscramblingtolimitaccesstocertainprogramstopayingcustomers.Scramblingcouldbeimprecise,however;andeitherorbothaudioandvisualportionsofthescrambledprogramsmightbeheardorseen,aphenomenonknownas"signalbleed."Thepurposeof§505istoshieldchildrenfromhearingorseeingimagesresultingfromsignalbleed.Tocomplywith§505,themajorityofcableoperatorsadoptedthe"timechanneling"approach,sothat,fortwo-thirdsoftheday,noviewersintheirserviceareascouldreceivetheprogramminginquestion.AppelleePlayboyEntertainmentGroup,Inc.,filedthissuitchallenging§505'sconstitutionality.Athree-judgeDistrictCourtconcludedthat§505'scontent-basedrestrictiononspeechviolatestheFirstAmendmentbecausetheGovernmentmightfurtheritsinterestsinlessrestrictiveways.Oneplausible,lessrestrictivealternativecouldbefoundin§504oftheAct,whichrequiresacableoperator,"[u]ponrequestbyacableservicesubscriber...withoutcharge,[to]fullyscrambleorotherwisefullyblock"anychannelthesubscriberdoesnotwishtoreceive.Aslongassubscribersknewaboutthisopportunity,thecourtreasoned,§504wouldprovideasmuchprotectionagainstunwantedprogrammingaswould§505.

Held:

BecausetheGovernmentfailedtoprove§505istheleastrestrictivemeansforaddressingarealproblem,theDistrictCourtdidnoterrinholdingthestatuteviolativeoftheFirstAmendment.Pp.6-23.

     （a）Twopointsshouldbeunderstood:

（1）Manyadultswouldfindthematerialatissuehighlyoffensive,andconsideringthatthematerialcomesunwantedintohomeswherechildrenmightseeorhearitagainstparentalwishesorconsent,therearelegitimatereasonsforregulatingit;and

（2）Playboy'sprogramminghasFirstAmendmentprotection.Section505isacontent-basedregulation.Italsosinglesoutparticularprogrammersforregulation.Itisofnomomentthatthestatutedoesnotimposeacompleteprohibition.Since§505iscontent-based,itcanstandonlyifitsatisfiesstrictscrutiny.E.g.,SableCommunicationsofCal.,Inc.v.FCC,492U. S.115,126.ItmustbenarrowlytailoredtopromoteacompellingGovernmentinterest,andifalessrestrictivealternativewouldservetheGovernment'spurpose,thelegislaturemustusethatalternative.Cabletelevision,likebroadcastmedia,presentsuniqueproblems,butevenwherespeechisindecentandentersthehome,theobjectiveofshieldingchildrendoesnotsufficetosupportablanketbaniftheprotectioncanbeobtainedbyalessrestrictivealternative.Thereis,moreover,akeydifferencebetweencabletelevisionandthebroadcastingmedia:

Cablesystemshavethecapacitytoblockunwantedchannelsonahousehold-by-householdbasis.Targetedblockingislessrestrictivethanbanning,andtheGovernmentcannotbanspeechiftargetedblockingisafeasibleandeffectivemeansoffurtheringitscompellinginterests.Pp.6-11.

     （b）Noonedisputesthat§504isnarrowlytailoredtotheGovernment'sgoalofsupportingparentswhowantsexuallyexplicitchannelsblocked.Thequestionhereiswhether§504canbeeffective.Despiteempiricalevidencethat§504generatedfewrequestsforhousehold-by-householdblockingduringaperiodwhenitwasthesolefederalblockingstatuteineffect,theDistrictCourtcorrectlyconcludedthat§504,ifpublicizedinanadequatemanner,couldserveasaneffective,lessrestrictivemeansofreachingtheGovernment'sgoals.WhentheGovernmentrestrictsspeech,theGovernmentbearstheburdenofprovingtheconstitutionalityofitsactions.E.g.,GreaterNewOrleansBroadcastingAssn.,Inc.v.UnitedStates,527U. S.173,183.Ofthreeexplanationsforthelackofindividualblockingrequestsunder§504--

（1）individualblockingmightnotbeaneffectivealternative,duetotechnologicalorotherlimitations;

（2）althoughanadequatelyadvertisedblockingprovisionmighthavebeeneffective,§504aswrittendoesnotrequiresufficientnoticetomakeitso;and（3）theactualsignalbleedproblemmightbefarlessofaconcernthantheGovernmentatfirsthadsupposed--theGovernmenthadtoshowthatthefirstwastherightanswer.AccordingtotheDistrictCourt,however,thefirstandthirdpossibilitieswere"equallyconsistent"withtherecordbeforeit,andtherecordwasnotclearastowhetherenoughnoticehadbeenissuedtogive§504afightingchance.UnlesstheDistrictCourt'sfindingsareclearlyerroneous,thetiegoestofreeexpression.Withregardtosignalbleeditself,theDistrictCourt'sthoroughdiscussionexposesacentralweaknessintheGovernment'sproof:

Thereislittlehardevidenceofhowwidespreadorhowserioustheproblemis.Thereisnoproofastohowlikelyanychildistoviewadiscernibleexplicitimage,andnoproofofthedurationofthebleedorthequalityofthepicturesorsound.Under§505,sanctionablesignalbleedcanincludeinstancesasfleetingasanimageappearingonascreenforjustafewseconds.TheFirstAmendmentrequiresamorecarefulassessmentandcharacterizationofanevilinordertojustifyaregulationassweepingasthis.TheGovernmenthasfailedtoestablishapervasive,nationwideproblemjustifyingitsnationwidedaytimespeechban.TheGovernmentalsofailedtoprove§504,withadequatenotice,wouldbeineffective.Thereisnoevidencethatawell-promotedvoluntaryblockingprovisionwouldnotbecapableatleastofinformingparentsaboutsignalbleed（iftheyarenotyetawareofit）andabouttheirrightstohavethebleedblocked（iftheyconsideritaproblemandhavenotyetcontrolleditthemselves）.Acourtshouldnotassumeaplausible,lessrestrictivealternativewouldbeineffective;andacourtshouldnotpresumeparents,givenfullinformation,willfailtoact.TheGovernmentalsoarguessociety'sindependentinterestswillbeunservedifparentsfailtoactonthatinformation.EvenupontheassumptionthattheGovernmenthasaninterestinsubstitutingitselfforinformedandempoweredparents,itsinterestisnotsufficientlycompellingtojustifythiswidespreadrestrictiononspeech.Theregulatoryalternativeofapublicized§504,whichhastherealpossibilityofpromotingmoreopendisclosureandthechoiceofaneffectiveblockingsystem,wouldprovideparentstheinformationneededtoengageinactivesupervision.TheGovernmenthasnotshownthatthisalternativewouldbeinsufficienttosecureitsobjective,orthatanyoverridingharmjustifiesitsintervention.Although,underavoluntaryblockingregime,evenwithadequatenotice,somechildrenwillbeexposedtosignalbleed,childrenwillalsobeexposedundertimechanneling,whichdoesnoteliminatesignalbleedaroundtheclock.Therecordissilentastothecomparativeeffectivenessofthetwoalternatives.Pp.11-22.

30F.Supp.2d702,affirmed.

     Kennedy,J.,deliveredtheopinionoftheCourt,inwhichStevens,Souter,Thomas,andGinsburg,JJ.,joined.Stevens,J.,andThomas,J.,filedconcurringopinions.Scalia,J.,filedadissentingopinion.Breyer,J.,filedadissentingopinion,inwhichRehnquist,C. J.,andO'ConnorandScalia,JJ.,joined.

UNITEDSTATES,et al.,APPELLANTSv.PLAYBOY

ENTERTAINMENTGROUP,INC.

onappealfromtheunitedstatesdistrictcourtfor

thedistrictofdelaware

[May22,2000]

     JusticeKennedydeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt.

     Thiscasepresentsachallengeto§505oftheTelecommunicationsActof1996,Pub.L.104-104,110Stat.136,47U. S. C.§561（1994ed.,Supp.III）.Section505requirescabletelevisionoperatorswhoprovidechannels"primarilydedicatedtosexually-orientedprogramming"eitherto"fullyscrambleorotherwisefullyblock"thosechannelsortolimittheirtransmissiontohourswhenchildrenareunlikelytobeviewing,setbyadministrativeregulationasthetimebetween10p.m.and6a.m.47U. S. C.§561（a）（1994ed.,Supp.III）;47CFR§76.227（1999）.Evenbeforeenactmentofthestatute,signalscramblingwasalreadyinuse.Cableoperatorsusedscramblingintheregularcourseofbusiness,sothatonlypayingcustomershadaccesstocertainprograms.Scramblingcouldbeimprecise,however;andeitherorbothaudioandvisualportionsofthescrambledprogramsmightbeheardorseen,aphenomenonknownas"signalbleed."Thepurposeof§505istoshieldchildrenfromhearingorseeingimagesresultingfromsignalbleed.

     Tocomplywiththestatute,themajorityofcableoperatorsadoptedthesecond,or"timechanneling,"approach.Theeffectofthewidespreadadoptionoftimechannelingwastoeliminatealtogetherthetransmissionofthetargetedprogrammingoutsidethesafeharborperiodinaffectedcableserviceareas.Inotherwords,fortwo-thirdsofthedaynohouseholdinthoseserviceareascouldreceivetheprogramming,whetherornotthehouseholdortheviewerwantedtodoso.

     AppelleePlayboyEntertainmentGroup,Inc.,challengedthestatuteasunnecessarilyrestrictivecontent-basedlegislationviolativeoftheFirstAmendment.Afteratrial,athree-judgeDistrictCourtconcludedthataregimeinwhichviewerscouldordersignalblockingo