FC: U.S. Supreme Court strikes down cable TV censorship law

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

[Congratulations to longtime politech member Bob Corn-Revere, who 
represents Playboy and argued this case before the court. --Declan]

*********

Restraints On TV Sex Struck Down (2000-05-23 07:02:15)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52014-2000May22.html

Supreme Court Strikes Down Adult Cable TV Law (2000-05-22 20:00:34)
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000522/ts/court_playboy_4.html

Sexually-oriented TV stations see growth after court decision (2000-05-22 
17:25:49)
http://www.foxnews.com/national/0522/d_ap_0522_170.sml

Why Judge Thomas Sided With the Playboy Channel (2000-05-22 17:11:42)
http://www.time.com/time/daily/0,2960,45765-101000522,00.html

Supreme Court Strikes Down Adult Cable TV Law (2000-05-22 13:03:55)
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000522/ts/court_playboy_3.html

Playboy Wins Cable Victory (2000-05-22 11:28:14)
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,36497,00.html

Court throws out restrictions on sex-oriented channels (2000-05-22 11:28:14)
http://www.foxnews.com/national/0522/d_ap_0522_68.sml

Supreme Court Strikes Down Adult Cable TV Law (2000-05-22 11:04:36)
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000522/ts/court_playboy_2.html

*********


http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1682.ZO.html

No. 98--1682
UNITED STATES, et al., APPELLANTS v. PLAYBOY
ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
[May 22, 2000]

[...snip...]

Basic speech principles are at stake in this case. 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. We cannot be influenced, moreover,
by the perception that the regulation in question is not a major one
because the speech is not very important. The history of the law of
free expression is one of vindication in cases involving speech that
many citizens may find shabby, offensive, or even ugly. It follows
that all content-based restrictions on speech must give us more than a
moment's pause. 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. 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.
The Government has failed to show that §505 is the least
restrictive means for addressing a real problem; and the District
Court did not err in holding the statute violative of the First
Amendment. In light of our ruling, it is unnecessary to address the
second question presented: whether the District Court was divested of
jurisdiction to consider the Government's postjudgment motions after
the Government filed a notice of appeal in this Court. The
judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------