|
''United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group'', 529 U.S. 803 (2000), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court struck down Section 505 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which required that cable television operators completely scramble or block channels that are "primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming" from 6 am to 10 pm. == Background == In order to shield children from hearing or seeing images resulting from signal bleed, the U.S. Congress enacted Section 505 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on the basis of a handful of complaints. No congressional hearing was held.〔(First Amendment Center, The Playboy Signal Bleed Case Should Never Have Been A Case )〕 Section 505 required cable television operators providing channels “primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programs” either to completely scramble or otherwise block those channels, or to limit their transmission hours to when children were unlikely to view. Administrative regulations defined children as unlikely to view programming between 10pm and 6am.〔(47 U.S.C. § 561(a) )〕 Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. challenged Section 505’s constitutionality, claiming that the provision violated the First Amendment. The District Court held that Section 505 was a content-based restriction on speech that was subject to strict scrutiny. In order to satisfy a strict scrutiny analysis, the Government was required to prove that it was “narrowly tailored to promote a compelling government interest.”〔(CNN, "Supreme Court says adult programming restrictions on cable are unconstitutional" )〕 The Government offered three interests to justify Section 505: (1) protecting children from being exposed to sexually explicit material; (2) supporting parents' rights to raise their children as they see fit; and (3) ensuring an individual's right to privacy in the home. The District Court agreed that the interests the statute advanced were compelling but concluded that it violated the First Amendment because the Government might further its interests through less restrictive alternatives. One less restrictive means is Section 504 of the Act, which requires a cable operator, upon request of a subscriber to fully scramble or otherwise block a channel that the subscriber does not wish to receive. The United States appealed directly to the Supreme Court, seeking to have the judgment reversed. A group of sexologists filed an amicus brief on behalf of Playboy arguing that there was no state interest in shielding minors from sexually explicit signal bleed. The brief's authors included Elizabeth Rice Allgeier, Vern L. Bullough, Milton Diamond, Harold I. Lief, John Money, and Ira L. Reiss.〔(Amici Curiae Brief )〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc.」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|