II. THE CDA'S INDECENCY RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE The CDA's indecency restrictions encompass the dissemination of information that, "in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs." 47 U.S.C. 223(d) That formulation is not unconstitutionally vague. In Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973), this Court defined what States could regulate as obscenity -- namely material that (1) "appeals to the prurient interest," (2) "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law," and (3) "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." The CDA's definition of patently offensive materials is similar to the second element in that definition. Because Miller held that the standard it imposed is not unconstitutionally vague and that States could criminally prosecute persons for violations of that standard, id. at 27 & n.10, Miller provides powerful support for the conclusion that the CDA's definition of patently offensive materials is not unconstitutionally vague. Ginsberg reinforces that conclusion. There, the Court rejected a vagueness challenge to a criminal prohibition on the sale of obscene pictures to minors that included as one element that the material be "patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors." 390 U.S. at 632-633, 643 Similarly, in Denver Area, a four-person plurality of the Court expressly rejected a vagueness challenge to a provision giving cable operators a right to prohibit programming on leased channels "that the cable operator reasonably believes describes or depicts sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner as measured by contemporary community standards." 116 S. Ct. at 2381, 2389-2390. Three other Justices voted to uphold the constitutionality of that provision, thereby implicitly rejecting the vagueness challenge. Id. at 2419 (opinion of Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) Because the CDA's definition of indecency is almost identical to the definition upheld against a vagueness challenge in Denver Area, that decision also provides support for the conclusion that the CDA's restrictions are not unconstitutionally vague. The Denver Area plurality's discussion of the issue demonstrates why the CDA's definition of indecency is not unconstitutionally vague. The plurality explained that the provision giving cable operators a right to bar patently offensive communications aims at "pictures of oral sex, bestiality, and rape * * * and not at scientific or educational programs (at least unless done with a highly unusual lack of concern for viewer reaction)." 116 S. Ct. at 2389-2390. The plurality also noted that "what is 'patently offensive, depends on context (the kind of program on which it appears)" and "degree (not 'an occasional expletive')." Id. at 2390. The legislative history to the CDA shows that Congress intended to confine the CDA's restrictions on indecency in a similar way. The Conference Report states that the determination whether material is patently offensive "cannot be made without a consideration of the context of the description or depiction at issue," and that "[m]aterial with serious redeeming value" that "is quite obviously intended to edify and educate, not to offend," is not patently offensive. S. Conf. Rep. No. 230, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 189. The Conference Report also explains that Congress intended to codify the FCC's definition of indecency that was approved in Pacifica. Id. at 188. In enforcing broadcast indecency rules, the FCC has declined to take enforcement action against a televised program that included candid discussions of teenage sexuality and that used sex organ models to simulate the use of various birth control devices. The Commission explained that "the material presented was clinical or instructional in nature and not presented in a pandering, titillating or vulgar manner." In re King Broadcasting Co., 5 F.C.C. Rcd. 2971 (1990). The FCC has also dismissed a citizen's complaint concerning a radio news story that had broadcasted a recording in which a reputed Mafia figure used an expletive repeatedly in conversation. Letter to Mr. Peter Branton, 6 F.C.C. Rcd. 610 (1991), petition for review dismissed, 993 F.2d 906 (D.C. Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1610 (1994). Thus, material having scientific, educational, or news value almost always falls outside the CDA's coverage. On the other hand, the kind of sexually explicit pictures that appear in the Schmidt notebook in this case will almost always be covered. Admittedly, there may be borderline cases "in which it is difficult to determine the side of the line on which a particular fact situation falls." United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 7 (1947). But that is not a "sufficient reason to hold language too ambiguous to define a criminal offense." Ibid. The Constitution requires government to "give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly." Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972). Perfect clarity, however, is neither possible nor constitutionally required. Id. at 110; Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 361 (1983). In light of their history, the terms "patently offensive" and "sexual or excretory activities or organs" give fair warning concerning what types of depictions and communications are and are not prohibited by the CDA. If the legislature is to be permitted to protect children by regulating the dissemination of patently offensive communications, no greater precision can be expected or required.