In the 1951 case of Beauharnais v. Illinois, Joseph Beauharnais was convicted under an Illinois statute for distributing literature that portrayed racial groups in a derogatory manner. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction with a 5-4 decision, ruling that states could prohibit speech and publications that incite hostility or violence towards different races or religions without violating the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections. This controversial decision marked one of the last times when the court allowed restrictions on free expression due to content-based censorship laws. Critics argue it contradicts later rulings which protect hate speech unless it directly incites unlawful action.

In the dissenting opinion for Beauharnais v. Illinois, Justice Black argued that the Illinois law punishing group libel was a violation of First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press. He contended that this ruling would set a dangerous precedent where states could punish any speech they deemed offensive or harmful to public morals, thus threatening individual liberties. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on historical practices regarding defamation laws as irrelevant because those laws were not designed with modern democratic principles in mind. Justice Douglas also dissented, arguing that even if some forms of hate speech might incite violence or create public disorder, it is better addressed through criminal sanctions against such actions rather than suppressing free expression itself.