In the case of City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., et al., 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a city ordinance banning commercial news racks on public property was unconstitutional as it violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. The City had argued that its ban was content-neutral and served significant government interests in safety and aesthetics. However, the court found that by allowing newspaper dispensers but not advertising ones, Cincinnati’s law discriminated based on content rather than just regulating time, place or manner of speech - thus failing to be neutral. Furthermore, since only 62 out of over 2000 total newsracks were affected by this rule (those containing purely commercial handbills), it did little to serve its stated purposes while disproportionately affecting certain speakers' rights.

In the dissenting opinion for CITY OF CINCINNATI v. DISCOVERY NETWORK, INC., Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to give due deference to Cincinnati's judgment about how best to regulate its public spaces. He contended that cities should have broad discretion in determining what types of speech are most compatible with their aesthetic and safety goals. The city had a legitimate interest in reducing visual clutter and maintaining pedestrian safety, which justified its ban on commercial newsracks while allowing those distributing newspapers. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that there was no meaningful difference between commercial handbills and newspapers; one is purely commercial speech promoting a product or service while the other contributes significantly more to public discourse by providing news and commentary on various issues of social importance.