In the case of Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 1984, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Greenmoss Builders by a vote of five to four. The dispute arose when Dun & Bradstreet erroneously reported that Greenmoss had filed for bankruptcy which resulted in significant financial loss and damage to reputation for the construction company. The court held that false statements made about private individuals or businesses do not enjoy First Amendment protection if they are negligently published and cause harm - even if they don't involve matters of public concern. This ruling was a departure from previous decisions where it was established that plaintiffs must prove "actual malice" (knowledge that information is false or reckless disregard for truth) before damages can be awarded in defamation cases involving public figures or matters of public interest.

The dissenting opinion in the Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., case argued that the majority's decision to allow punitive damages without proof of actual malice was a significant departure from established First Amendment principles. The dissenters believed this ruling would have chilling effects on speech and press freedoms by making media organizations more vulnerable to defamation lawsuits and potentially large damage awards. They contended that even false statements can contribute to public debate and should be protected unless they are made with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth (actual malice). Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's distinction between matters of private concern versus public concern, arguing it is not always clear-cut and could lead to arbitrary results. In conclusion, they felt that all defamatory falsehoods should require proof of actual malice before punitive damages can be awarded.