In the 1902 case of Commercial Publishing Company v. Beckwith, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Beckwith, a postmaster who had been sued by the Commercial Publishing Company for refusing to allow their publication to be mailed as second-class mail. The publishing company argued that their periodical met all requirements set forth by Congress for such mailing privileges and thus should have been allowed this cheaper rate. However, Beckwith contended that because advertisements made up more than half of each issue's content, it did not qualify as a legitimate periodical under postal regulations at the time which stipulated that publications must consist mainly of reading matter rather than advertising material. The court agreed with Beckwith's interpretation and upheld his decision to deny second-class mailing status to the publication.

In the dissenting opinion for Commercial Publishing Company v. Beckwith, it was argued that the court majority misinterpreted the law and failed to protect First Amendment rights. The dissenting justices believed that a newspaper's right to publish an article should not be limited by potential libel suits unless there is clear evidence of malicious intent or reckless disregard for truth. They contended that public figures, such as politicians, should expect scrutiny from press and public alike as part of their role in society; thus they must bear higher burden of proof in defamation cases than private individuals do. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on "actual malice," arguing it shouldn't merely refer to ill-will but rather knowingly false statements or those made with reckless disregard for truth. Lastly, they expressed concern over chilling effect this ruling could have on freedom of speech and press if journalists fear legal repercussions every time they report something potentially damaging about a public figure.