In the 1966 case Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public figures who are not public officials may still win a defamation suit against a publisher if they can prove "actual malice" on part of the publisher - defined as knowledge that information was false or reckless disregard for whether it was false or not. The case involved Wally Butts, former athletic director at University of Georgia, who sued Curtis Publishing Company (publisher of Saturday Evening Post) for libel after an article claimed he conspired to fix a football game between Alabama and Georgia in 1962. The court's decision expanded upon its previous ruling in New York Times Co v Sullivan which had established actual malice standard but only applied it to public officials.

In the dissenting opinion for Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, Justice Black argued that the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech and press should extend to libel cases involving public figures, as long as there was no evidence of malicious intent or reckless disregard for truth on part of the publisher. He contended that allowing public figures to sue publishers could potentially stifle free expression and inhibit robust debate about matters of public interest. Furthermore, he expressed concern over who would be classified as a "public figure," fearing it might include anyone who attracts attention from media outlets due to their actions or circumstances beyond their control. Lastly, he disagreed with the majority's decision to apply different standards in determining liability based on whether an individual is a "public official" versus a "public figure."