The U.S. Supreme Court case Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission et al., 1988, revolved around the issue of whether a federal law banning "indecent" as well as obscene interstate commercial phone messages violated the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections. The court ruled in favor of Sable Communications, holding that while Congress had the power to regulate obscene material, it went too far by completely banning indecent sexual communication between consenting adults over telephone lines (dial-a-porn services). The majority opinion stated that this ban was overly broad and infringed upon free speech rights protected under the First Amendment because less restrictive means were available for protecting minors from such content without infracring on adult communication rights. Therefore, while upholding government’s right to restrict obscenity which has no constitutional protection at all; it struck down restrictions on 'indecent' communications which can have some level of social value.

In the dissenting opinion for Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission et al., Justice White argued that the majority's decision to strike down a federal ban on indecent interstate commercial phone messages was incorrect. He contended that while it is important to protect free speech rights, there are limits when it comes to protecting children from exposure to sexually explicit material and preventing unwilling adults from being exposed as well. He believed that Congress had acted within its power in enacting this legislation and had done so with compelling interests in mind - namely, shielding minors from harmful materials and ensuring individual privacy rights were not violated by unsolicited obscene calls. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that these restrictions constituted an unconstitutional infringement upon First Amendment rights.