In Ginsberg v. New York, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a New York law that prohibited selling obscene material to minors under 17 years of age, even if that material was not considered obscene for adults. The case involved Sam Ginsberg who was convicted after knowingly selling two "girlie" magazines to a 16-year-old boy in his stationery store and luncheonette in Bellmore, Long Island. In its decision, the court ruled by a vote of five justices against four that states have an interest in protecting the welfare of children and could regulate obscenity accordingly; therefore it did not violate First Amendment rights as long as it didn't interfere with adult access to such materials. This ruling established what is known as variable obscenity or essentially different standards for minors than those applied to adults.

In the dissenting opinion for Ginsberg v. New York, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the law in question was too vague and overbroad, infringing upon First Amendment rights of free speech and expression. He contended that it is not within the state's power to decide what materials are suitable or unsuitable for minors without clear definitions or standards, as this could potentially lead to arbitrary enforcement and censorship. Furthermore, he expressed concern about parents being prosecuted under such a law simply because they may have different views on what is appropriate for their children compared to societal norms or government regulations. Ultimately, Douglas believed that while protecting minors from harmful content is important, it should not come at the expense of constitutional freedoms.