In the 1974 case Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a city ordinance in Jacksonville, Florida was unconstitutional as it violated First Amendment rights to free speech. The law prohibited drive-in movie theaters from showing films containing nudity if the screen was visible from a public place or private residence. Richard Erznoznik, manager of University Drive-In Theatre, challenged this law after being charged for screening such movies. The court held that while cities can regulate businesses to protect citizens' welfare and privacy, they cannot selectively limit freedom of expression by banning certain content without compelling reasons. It concluded that not all depictions of nudity could be classified as obscene or offensive; thus making this blanket ban overly broad and discriminatory against non-obscene expressive materials protected under First Amendment rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, Justice William Rehnquist argued that the city's ordinance was not a violation of First Amendment rights but rather a legitimate exercise of its police power to protect citizens from unwilling exposure to potentially offensive material. He contended that the majority's decision failed to recognize this important distinction and instead treated all public displays as if they were equally deserving of constitutional protection. Furthermore, he disagreed with their interpretation that nudity in films is always protected speech, arguing it could be regulated under certain circumstances without infringing on free expression rights. Lastly, he expressed concern about potential implications for other local regulations aimed at protecting public decency and order.