In the United States v. Reidel, 1970, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction for mailing obscene material in violation of federal law. The defendant argued that Stanley v. Georgia (1969), which protected private possession of obscene materials from state prosecution, should also protect his actions because he was merely supplying a demand created by this right to possess such materials privately. However, the court rejected this argument and held that Stanley did not create any rights related to distribution or receipt of obscenity through mail or other forms of public communication channels. The majority opinion stated that while individuals have a constitutional right to read or observe what they wish in their own homes, there is no corresponding right to receive it via mail nor distribute it publicly.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Reidel, Justice Hugo Black argued that the First Amendment's protection of free speech should extend to protect the distribution of obscene material through mail as well. He contended that obscenity is a vague concept and its definition can vary greatly among different people, making it an unreliable basis for limiting constitutional rights. Furthermore, he believed that allowing Congress to decide what constitutes obscenity would give them too much power over public morality and personal freedom. In his view, this could lead to censorship based on subjective moral judgments rather than objective harm or danger. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority ruling which upheld a law prohibiting mailing obscene materials.