The Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. case in 1989 revolved around a defamation claim made by wrestling coach Michael Milkovich against the Lorain Journal Company and one of its columnists, who had accused him of perjury in an article published after a court hearing concerning a brawl at a high school wrestling match. The Supreme Court ruled that statements made in the article could be considered as assertions of fact rather than protected opinion under the First Amendment, thus potentially constituting defamation if proven false. This decision clarified that there is no wholesale exemption from libel for alleged defamatory statements characterized as opinion but instead such characterizations are to be evaluated on their context and content.

In the dissenting opinion for Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall and Justice Blackmun, argued that opinions should be protected under the First Amendment to prevent a chilling effect on freedom of speech. They contended that distinguishing between fact and opinion is often difficult as many statements can be interpreted both ways depending on context. The majority's decision could potentially lead to self-censorship due to fear of litigation over ambiguous statements. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that existing safeguards in defamation law were sufficient protection for free speech rights; instead believing these protections inadequate when applied to media defendants who regularly engage in public debate where some exaggeration or misinterpretations are inevitable.