In the 1972 case Alexander et al. v. Virginia, the U.S Supreme Court upheld a conviction for showing an obscene film in a movie theater against First Amendment challenges. The appellant, Robert Eli Stanley Alexander Jr., was convicted under Virginia law for exhibiting two films deemed as "obscene". He argued that his rights to free speech and due process were violated by this conviction because it was based on community standards of obscenity rather than national ones. The court rejected these arguments, ruling that states have broad power to regulate obscenity within their borders and can use local community standards in determining what is considered obscene material. It also held that juries do not need expert testimony or evidence about contemporary community standards when deciding whether something is obscene; they can rely on their own knowledge of those standards. This decision reaffirmed previous rulings which established that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and expression. However, it also clarified how courts should apply local versus national standards when evaluating claims related to alleged violations involving state laws regulating obscenity.

In the dissenting opinion for Alexander et al. v. Virginia, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the state's obscenity laws were unconstitutional as they violated First Amendment rights to free speech and expression. He contended that only materials inciting violence or causing a clear and present danger should be restricted by law, not those deemed obscene by subjective standards of morality or taste. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s reliance on community standards in determining what constitutes obscenity because these can vary widely across different regions and cultures within the country; thus potentially leading to inconsistent applications of law nationwide based on local biases rather than objective legal principles. Additionally, he expressed concern about government intrusion into personal privacy through censorship of private possession of adult material at home which could set dangerous precedents for further encroachments upon civil liberties in future.