In Talley v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Manuel Talley who challenged a Los Angeles city ordinance that prohibited the distribution of handbills without including the name and address of those responsible for their creation and distribution. The court held that this requirement was an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment. The majority opinion argued that anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious or fraudulent practice but rather an honorable tradition integral to our democratic process; therefore, anonymity should be safeguarded rather than penalized. This case set important precedent regarding free speech rights and has been cited in subsequent cases involving internet anonymity.

In the dissenting opinion for Talley v. California, Justice Clark argued that the majority's decision to strike down a Los Angeles ordinance requiring identification on handbill literature was misguided. He believed that this law served an important public interest and did not infringe upon First Amendment rights as it only regulated conduct rather than speech itself. The justice emphasized that anonymous pamphlets could be used maliciously or irresponsibly, causing harm to individuals or disrupting public order without any accountability for those responsible. Therefore, he saw the requirement of identification as a reasonable measure to prevent such abuses while still allowing freedom of expression. Furthermore, he pointed out historical instances where anonymity had been abused in political discourse and suggested there were valid reasons why society might want some regulation in this area.