810
Opinion of the Court
scramble or otherwise fully block" any channel the subscriber does not wish to receive. 110 Stat. 136, 47 U. S. C. � 560 (1994 ed., Supp. III). As long as subscribers knew about this opportunity, the court reasoned, � 504 would provide as much protection against unwanted programming as would � 505. 30 F. Supp. 2d, at 718-720. At the same time, � 504 was content neutral and would be less restrictive of Playboy's First Amendment rights. Ibid.
The court described what "adequate notice" would include, suggesting
"[operators] should communicate to their subscribers the information that certain channels broadcast sexually-oriented programming; that signal bleed . . . may appear; that children may view signal bleed without their parents' knowledge or permission; that channel blocking devices . . . are available free of charge . . . ; and that a request for a free device . . . can be made by a telephone call to the [operator]." Id., at 719.
The means of providing this notice could include
"inserts in monthly billing statements, barker channels (preview channels of programming coming up on PayPer-View), and on-air advertisement on channels other than the one broadcasting the sexually explicit programming." Ibid.
The court added that this notice could be "conveyed on a regular basis, at reasonable intervals," and could include notice of changes in channel alignments. Ibid.
The District Court concluded that � 504 so supplemented would be an effective, less restrictive alternative to � 505, and consequently declared � 505 unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. Id., at 719-720. The court also required Playboy to insist on these notice provisions in its contracts with cable operators. Ibid.
The United States filed a direct appeal in this Court pursuant to � 561. The District Court thereafter dismissed for
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007