In the case of Rabe v. Washington, 1971, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state law that criminalized obscenity violated an individual's First Amendment rights. The petitioner, John H. Rabe Jr., had been convicted under a Washington State statute for selling obscene literature and appealed his conviction on constitutional grounds. He argued that the state law was overly broad and infringed upon his right to free speech as protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld Rabe’s conviction in a per curiam decision (a ruling issued collectively by multiple judges), finding no merit in his claim that he did not have adequate notice of what constituted "obscene" material under the law or that it overstepped its bounds into constitutionally protected territory. The court held that there were sufficient judicial interpretations available at both federal and state levels which provided clear guidelines about what could be considered obscene. This case reaffirmed previous rulings where courts maintained their authority to regulate obscenity without infringing upon individuals' constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Rabe v. Washington, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law banning obscene material failed to consider important First Amendment implications. The dissent emphasized that obscenity should not be treated as an exception to free speech protections without clear and compelling reasons. It was suggested that the court had been too quick in accepting vague notions of public morality as justification for censorship, instead of requiring concrete evidence of harm caused by such materials. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuses of power and subjective interpretations if government officials were given broad discretion in determining what constitutes 'obscenity'. They also criticized the lack of clarity in defining 'obscene', which could lead to arbitrary enforcement and chilling effects on free expression.