Although the defendant presented multiple arguments in his defense, the Court was able to reverse Georgia's decision using just one of them. A distinction was drawn by the Court between public display and private possession of obscenity. Neither "Roth" nor any other case at the time set a precedent for private possession of obscenity. The Court thus decided to set precedent on this issue in this case. "Roth" dealt with the mailing and advertising of obscenity. A companion case, "Alberts v. California", involved the advertising and sale of obscene materials. All earlier cases were decided with the negative externality of obscenity in mind. They reasoned that members of the public, especially impressionable children, should have a valid expectation to not be inadvertently exposed to obscenity. Public display of obscenity was deemed an "important interest" in "Roth". Private possession was not as interesting in the eyes of the Court.