In the 1980 case Flynt et al. v. Ohio, Larry Flynt and his brother Jimmy were appealing their convictions for pandering obscenity and engaging in organized crime through their adult entertainment business, Hustler Magazine Inc., based on an Ohio state law. The Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear their appeal without comment or explanation, effectively upholding the lower court's decision that found them guilty of these charges. This refusal by the Supreme Court meant that it agreed with Ohio's interpretation of what constituted obscenity under its laws at that time and affirmed its right to prosecute those who violated such laws within its jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for Flynt et al. v. Ohio, the justice argued that Larry Flynt's conviction for selling obscene material was unconstitutional because it violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and press. The justice believed that there was no compelling state interest in regulating or censoring adult pornography as long as it did not involve minors or non-consenting adults. They also criticized the majority's reliance on community standards to determine obscenity, arguing this approach was too subjective and could lead to arbitrary enforcement of laws against obscenity. Furthermore, they contended that such censorship could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression by discouraging artists and writers from tackling controversial subjects out of fear of prosecution.