In the 1967 case of Hackin v. Arizona, Dr. David Hackin and his wife were convicted by an Arizona state court for possession of obscene materials with intent to exhibit them publicly in violation of a state law. The couple appealed their conviction on the grounds that it violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression, arguing that obscenity was not within the scope of constitutionally protected speech or press. The U.S Supreme Court declined to review this case due its lack of jurisdiction under Title 28 United States Code Section 1257(2). This section states that final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court in a State where decision could be had may only be reviewed if they involve a statute held invalid as repugnant to Constitution, treaties or laws; but here no such issue was raised before nor decided by Arizona courts. Therefore, despite raising important questions about constitutional interpretation and individual liberties related to free speech and censorship issues surrounding obscenity laws at both federal and state levels during late-1960s America; ultimately this particular appeal did not result in any significant legal precedent being set.

In the dissenting opinion for Hackin v. Arizona, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law banning picketing on private property without consent of the owner infringed upon First Amendment rights. The dissenters believed that peaceful picketing should be protected as free speech and assembly, even if it occurs on privately owned land open to public use such as shopping centers or malls. They contended that these spaces function similarly to traditional public forums like streets or parks where protests are generally allowed. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential misuse of this ruling by powerful entities seeking to suppress labor movements or other forms of protest against their practices by claiming trespassing violations. Thus, in their view, upholding this law could have serious implications for freedom of expression and democratic discourse in America.