In the 1966 case Tannenbaum v. New York, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a city ordinance that prohibited distribution of handbills in public places violated First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly. The petitioner, Marvin Tannenbaum, had been convicted for distributing anti-war leaflets on a sidewalk outside an army induction center in New York City without obtaining prior permission from the police commissioner as required by local law. In his appeal, he argued that this requirement constituted unconstitutional censorship and infringed upon his right to free expression. The Supreme Court upheld Tannenbaum's conviction with a per curiam decision (a unanimous ruling issued collectively by all judges), stating that it did not find any constitutional issues with requiring permits for such activities in order to maintain public order and safety. The court reasoned that while individuals have broad rights under the First Amendment, these are not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent chaos or disorder.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Tannenbaum v. New York argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction for distributing obscene material was incorrect and inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings on obscenity laws. The dissenting justices contended that the state had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the materials distributed were "utterly without redeeming social importance," which is one of three criteria established by Roth v. United States for determining whether something is obscene or not. They also criticized the majority's reliance on community standards, arguing it could lead to arbitrary and subjective decisions about what constitutes obscenity, thereby threatening freedom of speech and press rights protected under First Amendment.