In Winters v. New York, 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a New York state law prohibiting distribution of "indecent" literature was unconstitutional due to its vague definition of what constituted indecency. The case arose when Sydney Winters, a magazine distributor in New York City, was convicted under this law for selling publications focused on crime stories and violent acts. He appealed his conviction arguing that the statute violated his First Amendment rights by being overly broad and ambiguous in defining what material could be considered illegal. The Supreme Court agreed with Winters' argument stating that the vagueness of the law made it impossible for individuals to know whether they were acting within legal boundaries or not - thus violating their constitutional right to freedom of speech and press. This ruling set an important precedent emphasizing clarity in legislation related to censorship and obscenity laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Winters v. New York, 1947, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to strike down a state law as unconstitutionally vague was an overreach of judicial power. He contended that it is not within the purview of courts to determine whether laws are wise or foolish but only if they violate constitutional rights. In his view, this particular statute did not infringe upon any such rights and its language was sufficiently clear in defining what constituted prohibited material - namely magazines primarily composed of criminal news or stories of deeds of bloodshed or lust which were so massed as to become vehicles for inciting violent and depraved crimes against nature. Furthermore, he believed that there existed ample precedents upholding similar statutes against vagueness challenges. Therefore, according to him, striking down this law represented an unwarranted interference with states' police powers and their ability to protect public morals.