U.S. Code » Title 47 » Chapter CHAPTER 5— WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER V–A— CABLE COMMUNICATIONS › Part Part IV— Miscellaneous Provisions

47 U.S.C. § 561

Scrambling of sexually explicit adult video service programming

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Requirement

In providing sexually explicit adult programming or other programming that is indecent on any channel of its service primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming, a multichannel video programming distributor shall fully scramble or otherwise fully block the video and audio portion of such channel so that one not a subscriber to such channel or programming does not receive it.

(b) Implementation

Until a multichannel video programming distributor complies with the requirement set forth in subsection (a), the distributor shall limit the access of children to the programming referred to in that subsection by not providing such programming during the hours of the day (as determined by the Commission) when a significant number of children are likely to view it.

(c) “Scramble” defined

As used in this section, the term “scramble” means to rearrange the content of the signal of the programming so that the programming cannot be viewed or heard in an understandable manner.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title VI, § 641, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title V, § 505(a), Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 136.)Editorial NotesConstitutionality

For information regarding the constitutionality of this section, see the Table of Laws Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court on the Constitution Annotated website, constitution.congress.gov.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 104–104, title V, § 505(b), Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 136, provided that: “The amendment made by subsection (a) [enacting this section] shall take effect 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Feb. 8, 1996].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2023 · leading case: United States v. Playboy Ent. Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Playboy Ent. Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000). · cites it 18× “136, 47 U. S. C. § 561 (1994 ed., Supp. III). Section 505 requires cable television operators who provide channels "primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming" either to "fully scramble or otherwise fully block" those channels or to limit their transmission to hours…”
United States v. William M. Landham, 251 F.3d 1072 (6th Cir. 2001). “§ 2284 and § 561(a) of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 561 (a), a district court of three judges shall be convened when the constitutionality of any provision of the CDA is challenged.”
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824 (E.D. Pa. 1996). “However, in light of the procedures which are required by 47 U.S.C. § 561 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 2284 , and were followed by this court in establishing an extensive record in this case, to ignore the evidence presented would be to ignore what an action for injunctive relief is all…”
Connection Distrib. Co. v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “1878 (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 561 (a) (1994 ed., Supp. III)).”
United States v. Cassidy, 814 F. Supp. 2d 574 (D. Maryland 2011). “” 47 U.S.C. § 561 (a) (1994 Supp. III.). Id.”
Playboy Ent. Grp., Inc. v. United States, 945 F. Supp. 772 (D. Del. 1996). · cites it 3× “Specifically, pursuant to § 505(a) ( 47 U.S.C. § 561 (a)), MSOs are required to “fully block the video and audio portion of [an adult entertainment] channel so that one not a subscriber to such channel or programming does not receive it.”
Playboy Ent. Grp., Inc. v. United States, 30 F. Supp. 2d 702 (D. Del. 1998). · cites it 3× “(“Playboy”) challenges the constitutionality of section 505 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 561 (“CDA”) which regulates signal bleed, i.”
People v. Hsu, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6511 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). “2d 865 ] (Playboy) applied the same analytical standard in deciding whether section 505 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 ( 47 U.S.C. § 561 ) (CDA), requiring cable operators to scramble or block sexually oriented programming, is content-based or content-neutral.”
Piatek v. Pulaski Twp., 828 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003). “In Playboy, the High Court addressed the constitutionality of a provision of the Federal Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 561 . Section 561 required cable television operators that provided sexually-oriented channels either to limit the transmission of such channels to times…”
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Holder, 729 F. Supp. 2d 691 (E.D. Pa. 2010). “Nor does this Court agree with plaintiffs’ position that the question whether §§ 2257 and 2257A advance significant governmental interest can only be properly resolved in this case by taking additional evidence, thereby rendering dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim unwarranted.…”
Playboy Ent. Grp., Inc. v. United States, 918 F. Supp. 813 (D. Del. 1996). “Section 505 of the Telecommunications Act will be codified at 47 U.S.C.A. § 561 . 4 . Section 561 of the Act requires that facial challenges to the Act’s constitutionality must be heard by a district court of three judges empaneled pursuant to 28 U.”
People v. Rolfe, 2023 IL App (4th) 220364-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “at 806 , 827 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 561 (Supp. III 1994)). Here, in contrast, defendant does not make a facial challenge to any governmental content-based speech restriction, i.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.