In 1996, The United States Congress passed a law that they called the 'Communications Decency Act'. In the forementioned act, more precicely, section 505 demanded that cable operators that offered channels that were 100 percent dedicated to 'sexually oriented programing' were to do one of three things. They could scramble or completely block their channels between 6 in the morning till 10 at night where children where most likely to view it. They could also only broadcast between what was deemed the 'safe harbour' hours which were 10pm-6am. Congress said that the purpose of section 505 was to protect those who weren't subscribed to the network airing them from 'signal bleed' which back in ...view middle of the document...
One such mean was outlined in the section before 505. Section 504 stated that 'Cable Operator's are required, on the subscribers request, to fully scramble, or otherwise block a channel that a subscriber does not wish to partake of. '
After losing to the District Court, The United States appealed directly to the Supreme Court, seeking to have the three panel's decision reversed.
Before the Surpeme court met, a group of sexologists filed a Amicus brief on Playboy Entertainment groups behalf, stating that ' there was no state interest in shielding minors from sexualy explicit signal bleed.
Tuesday November 1999, The supreme court met with a one Mr.Feldmen to discuss the District courts opinion. After about an hour of banter back an forth, few judges openingly showing their revulsion to the subject, and others with Mr.Feldmen's opinion, The Supreme court ruled 5/4 in the Playboy Entertainment Group's interests. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy outlined the courts opinion that stated. ' Section 505 was a content-based restriction because the provision singlied out not only particular programming but also particular programmers.'
In the governments favor the Supreme court did accept and understand the compelling reasoning behind Section 505, it did conclude that the violation of the first amendments free speech clause was too prominant. The court also concluded that the Government's section 505 wasn't the least restricive way to preventing the viewership of sexually explicit material, either by choice or through signal bleed.
The Court stated that from the Content Deciency Act, Sextion 504 offered up a less restricive way to preventing expicit material leaking through to unwanted eyes or ears, so thus it was an different and less restricive regulation technique.
In response to the...