Updated May 22, 2000, 12:18 a.m. ET
Court throws out restrictions on sex-oriented channels
WASHINGTON (AP) Congress violated free-speech rights when it
sought to protect children from sex-oriented cable channels like
Playboy Television, the Supreme Court ruled today.
The 5-4 decision said Congress went too far when it required
cable TV systems to restrict sex-oriented networks to overnight
hours if they do not fully scramble their signal for nonsubscribers.
"If television broadcasts can expose children to the real risk
of harmful exposure to indecent materials, even in their own home
and without parental consent, there is a problem the government can
address," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court. "It
must do so, however, in a way consistent with First Amendment principles.
"Here the government has not met the burden the First Amendment
imposes," Kennedy said.
The justices upheld a lower court's conclusion that less
restrictive alternatives are available to address the issue.
Kennedy's opinion was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens,
David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Dissenting were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices
Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer.
The anti-smut law was enacted as part of the 1996 Communications
Decency Act following complaints that even though sex-oriented
channels are scrambled for nonsubscribers, the picture and sound
sometimes get through.
The Playboy Entertainment Group challenged the law as a
violation of the Constitution's First Amendment free-speech
protection. The law restricts such programming even to households
without children, Playboy's lawyers contended.
The Clinton administration had argued that without the law,
children whose parents did not subscribe to such channels would
often be able to see and hear raunchy programming on poorly scrambled networks.
A Florida woman said she found her 7- and 8-year-old children
and a playmate one afternoon watching the Spice channel, with
scenes of a couple seemingly having sex with the "groans and
epithets that go along," the government said in court papers.
The problem occurs in as many as 39 million homes with 29
million children, a Justice Department lawyer told the court during
arguments last November.
The law required cable operators that do not fully scramble or
block sex-oriented networks for nonsubscribers to show those
"indecent" channels only between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
Unlike obscene material, indecent material is constitutionally protected.
Playboy challenged the law in 1996. The Supreme Court let the
government begin enforcing the restriction in May 1997. But after a
trial on Playboy's lawsuit, a three-judge federal court in Delaware
struck down the law in December 1998.
The court said another section of the law already requires cable
operators to completely block any channel for free upon a
customer's request. The court said giving adequate notice of that
alternative would be less restrictive than barring such
adult-oriented programming in the daytime.
Today, the Supreme Court agreed.
"Basic speech principles are at stake in this case," Kennedy
wrote. "When the purpose and design of a statute is to regulate
speech by reason of its content, special consideration or latitude
is not accorded to the government merely because the law can
somehow be described as a burden rather than outright suppression."
Writing for the dissenters, Breyer said the majority had not
made a "realistic assessment of the alternatives. It thereby
threatens to leave Congress without power to help the millions of
parents who do not want to expose their children to commercial pornography."
There are several types of technology for scrambling and
unscrambling cable TV signals, and the effectiveness often depends
on the weather, the quality of the equipment and its installation
and maintenance. An increasing number of cable systems use digital
technology, which can fully block a network signal.
The case is U.S. vs. Playboy Entertainment Group, 98-1682.
|