In the 1956 case Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, the U.S Supreme Court upheld a New York law that allowed city officials to seek an injunction against materials they considered obscene before those materials were distributed publicly. The appellants, Kingsley Books and others involved in publishing and distributing books, challenged this law on grounds of violating their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press by imposing prior restraint on publication. However, the court ruled in favor of Brown (representing New York City), stating that while prior restraints are generally unconstitutional under most circumstances due to potential abuse or misuse by government authorities suppressing dissent or unpopular views; this particular statute was narrowly drawn with sufficient safeguards - including immediate final hearing and prompt judicial review - which minimized risks associated with such abuses thereby protecting constitutional freedoms while also allowing for regulation against obscenity.

In the dissenting opinion for Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision was a dangerous departure from established First Amendment principles protecting freedom of speech and press. He contended that New York’s law allowing prior restraint on obscene publications was unconstitutional as it violated these freedoms by censoring materials before they were published or distributed to the public. Furthermore, he criticized the court's reliance on "obscenity" exceptions to justify this infringement upon free expression rights since obscenity standards could be subjective and potentially manipulated to suppress unpopular ideas or opinions under vague definitions of what is considered obscene content. In his view, such laws not only threatened individual liberties but also undermined democratic processes which depend on open discourse and debate without government interference in determining what information citizens can access or share.