In the United States v. Orito case of 1972, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction for transporting obscene materials across state lines. The defendant, Joseph Orito, was found in possession of pornographic material while traveling from Wisconsin to California and was charged under federal law prohibiting interstate transportation of such items. In his defense, Orito argued that this law violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and expression. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with him by a unanimous decision (9-0). They held that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment as it does not contribute to any form of public discourse or exchange of ideas which are fundamental elements in a democratic society. Therefore, Congress has constitutional authority to regulate its distribution including through interstate commerce.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Orito, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the First Amendment protects all speech and press, regardless of its content or value to society. He contended that obscenity laws are unconstitutional because they violate this principle by allowing government officials to decide what is acceptable for public consumption based on their personal tastes and values. Furthermore, he asserted that such laws create a chilling effect on free expression as individuals may self-censor out of fear of prosecution. Douglas also criticized the majority's reliance on community standards in determining obscenity, arguing it was an arbitrary measure prone to abuse and could lead to widespread censorship if conservative communities set national standards.