In the 1970 case of Ocala Star-Banner Co. et al. v. Damron, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a newspaper company and its editor who were sued for libel by a local political candidate, Leroy H. Damron. The court held that public figures like Mr.Damron must prove "actual malice" — knowledge that statements are false or made with reckless disregard for truth — to win defamation suits against news organizations under the First Amendment's free press guarantee. Damron had claimed an article published about him during his campaign was defamatory as it falsely stated he had been indicted on charges related to illegal liquor sales years prior when he actually hadn't been formally charged but only investigated. The Supreme Court reversed lower courts' decisions awarding damages to Damron, stating that even if there were minor inaccuracies in reporting on public figures running for office, they would not be sufficient grounds for libel unless actual malice could be proven.

In the dissenting opinion for OCALA STAR-BANNER CO. et al. v. DAMRON, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision was a departure from previous rulings which protected freedom of speech and press under the First Amendment, even when it caused harm to individuals' reputations. He believed that this case should not have been an exception as there were no false statements made with actual malice or reckless disregard for truth - criteria established in New York Times Co. v Sullivan (1964) for defamation cases involving public figures or matters of public concern. Instead, he saw this as a situation where truthful information about a candidate running for office was published by newspapers during an election campaign period - something he considered essential in democratic societies to allow voters make informed decisions on who they want representing them in government offices.