In the landmark case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1963, the U.S Supreme Court established a key precedent for freedom of speech and press under the First Amendment. The case arose when L.B. Sullivan, an Alabama public official, sued The New York Times for defamation over an advertisement that he claimed falsely criticized his handling of civil rights protests in Montgomery, Alabama; even though he was not directly mentioned in it. He won $500k at trial court level but on appeal to the Supreme Court, they unanimously ruled against him stating that false statements were inevitable in free debate and must be protected unless made with actual malice - knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for truth or falsity - especially concerning public officials' conduct related to their office duties. This ruling significantly limited state laws meant to protect public officials from criticism and expanded constitutional safeguards for a free press.

In the dissenting opinion for New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Justice Black and Justice Douglas argued that the First Amendment protects all publications about public officials from libel actions, even false ones, unless there is proof of malice or reckless disregard for truth. They believed that any other interpretation would discourage criticism of government and stifle free speech - a fundamental right in a democratic society. The justices also pointed out historical evidence suggesting that the framers intended to protect such criticisms without exception. Furthermore, they contended that allowing public officials to sue critics would give them an unfair advantage over ordinary citizens in debates on public issues since it could deter people from voicing their opinions due to fear of legal repercussions.