In the 1967 case of Rabeck v. New York, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a decision by the New York courts to convict two men for possession of obscene material with intent to sell and distribute it. The defendants argued that their First Amendment rights were violated because they were not given an opportunity to prove that the seized materials had redeeming social value before being convicted under state law. However, in its ruling, the Supreme Court held that obscenity is not protected speech under the First Amendment and therefore does not require proof of social value or lack thereof for conviction purposes.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Rabeck v. New York argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction for loitering without sufficient evidence was an infringement on personal liberties. The dissent contended that there was no clear and present danger posed by the defendant’s actions, thus making his arrest and subsequent conviction unconstitutional. They believed it was not enough for law enforcement to suspect someone might commit a crime; they must have concrete proof or reasonable suspicion based on specific facts before taking action. This ruling, according to them, set a dangerous precedent where individuals could be arrested merely based on their appearance or presence in certain locations rather than any actual criminal behavior.