In the case of Friedman v. New York in 1966, the U.S Supreme Court upheld a decision by the New York State Liquor Authority to revoke a liquor license from an establishment that allowed topless dancing. The court held that such entertainment was not protected under First Amendment rights to free speech and expression. The owner of the establishment, Belle Friedman, argued that her business was being unfairly targeted while other establishments with similar entertainment were not penalized. However, this argument did not sway the court's ruling as it found no evidence of discriminatory enforcement by state officials against Mrs. Friedman’s business specifically.

In the dissenting opinion for Friedman v. New York, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law prohibiting commercial handbill distribution violated First Amendment rights. The dissenting justices believed that this type of regulation constituted an overreach by government authorities and infringed upon citizens' freedom of speech. They contended that while there may be legitimate reasons to regulate certain types of advertising or solicitation in public spaces, such as preventing litter or maintaining public order, these concerns should not justify a blanket ban on all forms of handbill distribution. Instead, they suggested more narrowly tailored regulations could achieve these goals without infringing upon constitutional rights. Furthermore, they expressed concern about the potential chilling effect this ruling might have on other forms of free expression if left unchallenged.