In the case of Bolger et al. v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 1982, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a federal statute prohibiting unsolicited mailing of advertisements for contraceptives did not violate the First Amendment's guarantee to freedom of speech. The court held that while commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment, it can be regulated more than other types of expression due to its potential for deception or manipulation. In this case, Congress had a substantial interest in protecting people from unwanted intrusions into their homes and offensive materials; thus outweighing any free-speech rights claimed by Youngs Drug Products Corp., who argued they were merely providing valuable information about family planning and disease prevention through their mailings.

In the dissenting opinion for Bolger et al. v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., Justice Blackmun, joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a ban on unsolicited advertisements for contraceptives was overly broad and infringed upon First Amendment rights. They contended that while protecting minors from potentially offensive material is important, this should not justify an outright prohibition of all mailings about contraceptives to everyone regardless of age or desire to receive such information. The dissenters believed that less restrictive alternatives could achieve the same goal without infringing on free speech rights - like allowing recipients to opt out of receiving such materials or requiring advertisers to use envelopes which do not reveal their contents externally. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how different types of products were treated under law; it seemed irrational that contraceptive manufacturers were prohibited from sending unsolicited advertisements when other companies selling products with sexual implications (like lingerie) faced no similar restrictions.