U.S.+v.+Playboy+(C3)

U.S. vs. Playboy (Mr. Correll period 3) Mark Nath Bradley Harply V. = = Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act in 1996, section 505 of it required that cable operators, providing channels dedicated to sexually oriented programming, either to fully scramble or otherwise fully block those channels or to broadcast those channels during the safe-harbor hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. - times when young kids were unlikely to be watching. The purpose of section 505 was to protect non-subscribers, and their children, from signal bleed, or when audio and visual portions of the scrambled programs might be heard or seen. In February 1996, Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. filed a law suit challenging section 505's constitutionality. A three judge District Court panel found that section 505's content based restriction on speech violated the First Amendment because the Government might further its interests in less restrictive ways. Does section 505 violate the first amendment? Is section 505 the least restrictive means to block the transmission of cable television channels? THE MAJOR LAW OR RIGHTS DISCUSSED: The First Amendment, and The 1996 Communications Decency Act. DECISION: Yes section 505 violates the first amendment. No section 505 is not the least restrictive means to block transmission of cable television channels. REASONING: Federal government failed to show that section 505 was the least restrictive means to further its interests, requiring cable television operators to fully scramble or limit when sexual programming was transmitted violated the free speech guarantee. IMPACT: Adult programmings are allowed to air at any time, and they don't have to fully scramble or fully block it.
 * Nick Moses **
 * ISSUE/MAJOR QUESTION:

For more information visit: [|Cornell Law] [|Oyez]**