nor even their participation – in the communication
would avoid the application of the statute.

Reno, 521 U.S. at 865 (citation omitted); see also Ginsberg, 390
U.S. at 639 ("It is cardinal with us that the custody, care, and
nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary
function and freedom include preparation for obligations the
state can neither supply nor hinder." (quoting Prince v.
Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944))).


The Court in Playboy acknowledged that although a regime of
permitting parents voluntarily to block cable channels containing
sexually explicit programming might not be a completely effective
alternative to the challenged law, which effectively required
cable operators to transmit sexually explicit programming only
during particular hours, the challenged law itself was not
completely effective in serving the government's interest:
There can be little doubt, of course, that under a
voluntary blocking regime, even with adequate notice,
some children will be exposed to signal bleed; and we
need not discount the possibility that a graphic image
could have a negative impact on a young child. It must
be remembered, however, that children will be exposed
to signal bleed under time channeling as well. . . .
The record is silent as to the comparative
effectiveness of the two alternatives.

Playboy, 529 U.S. at 826. Similarly, in this case, the
government has offered no evidence comparing the effectiveness of