In the case of Tralins v. Gerstein, State Attorney in 1963, Robert M. Tralins challenged his conviction for selling obscene books under Florida law. He argued that the state statute was unconstitutional as it violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press by not providing a clear definition of obscenity. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument stating that the Florida law did provide an adequate standard for determining what constitutes obscenity and thus did not violate constitutional rights. Furthermore, they held that states have a legitimate interest in regulating commerce in obscene material and its dissemination among persons who are unable or unwilling to avoid exposure to it.

In the dissenting opinion for Tralins v. Gerstein, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Florida statute banning obscene materials from being sold or distributed did not adequately consider First Amendment rights. The dissenters believed that this law could potentially infringe upon free speech and press protections by allowing government censorship of certain materials deemed "obscene." They also raised concerns about how obscenity was defined under this law, arguing that its vagueness could lead to arbitrary enforcement and potential misuse. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that such laws were necessary to protect public morals and welfare, stating there wasn't enough evidence presented in court proving a direct link between exposure to obscene material and societal harm.