![[Politech logo]](http://www.politechbot.com/image/logo.gif){kind=logo}
Politech is the oldest Internet resource devoted to politics and technology. Launched in 1994 by Declan McCullagh, the mailing list has chronicled the growing intersection of culture, technology, politics, and law. Since 2000, so has the Politech web site.
[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/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------