UNITED STATES et.docx
- 文档编号:26670608
- 上传时间:2023-06-21
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:39
- 大小:50.30KB
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
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- UNITED STATES et