Legal Opinion
Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. v. United States
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided November 8, 1996No. Civil Action 96-94, 96-107-JJFPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ROTH, Circuit Judge:
The plaintiffs in this action, Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. (“Playboy”) and Graff Pay-Per-View (“Graff”), challenge the constitutionality of section 505 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (“the CDA” of “the Act”), which is Title V ?f the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Congress enacted section 505 in an effort to eliminate signal bleed, i.e., the partial reception of sexually explicit adult cable television programming in the homes of non-subscribers to that programming.
Most cable television systems in the United States…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Elrod v. BurnsSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1998
- Wagner v. City of HolyokeDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2000
- United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Secretary of the United States Department of Health & Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2013
- Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Secretary of the United States Department of Health & Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2013
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.