In McLeod v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1963 that a state cannot constitutionally apply its criminal libel law to punish published criticism of the conduct of public officials unless it is proven that such criticism was made with actual malice - knowledge that statements were false or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. The case involved an Ohio newspaper editor who had been convicted under a state criminal libel statute for publishing articles criticizing local officials' handling of certain matters. The court held this conviction violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and press because there was no evidence presented at trial showing actual malice on part of the editor when he published those articles.

In the dissenting opinion for McLeod v. Ohio, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to reverse and remand the case back to state court. He argued that there was no constitutional violation in this case as he believed that a State has every right to protect its citizens from fraudulent practices by requiring those who solicit funds for charitable purposes to disclose their identities and affiliations. Furthermore, he contended that such regulations do not infringe upon First Amendment rights of free speech or assembly since they are aimed at preventing fraud rather than suppressing ideas or beliefs. Therefore, according to him, it is within a State’s power under its police powers doctrine without violating any federal constitutional guarantees.