In the 1952 case of Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines, Inc., Anthony Polizzi sued Look Magazine for libel after they published an article that implicated him in illegal activities. The magazine had reported that he was involved in a black market baby ring and had been convicted of manslaughter, both claims which were false. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Polizzi, stating that the publication did not exercise due diligence to verify their information before publishing it and thus acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This ruling reinforced the principle that media outlets can be held liable for damages if they publish defamatory content without taking reasonable steps to ensure its accuracy.

In the dissenting opinion for Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines, Inc., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Cowles Magazines, which had published an article about Anthony Polizzi's criminal past without his consent, violated Polizzi's right to privacy. The dissenting justices believed that even though the information published by Cowles was true and obtained legally from public records, publishing such information could cause harm or embarrassment to individuals like Polizzi who were trying to rehabilitate their lives after serving time in prison. They contended that everyone has a right not only against false but also against unnecessarily harmful truth when private facts are made public without any legitimate interest of society being served thereby. Therefore, they felt that courts should have discretion in determining whether certain truthful publications violate an individual’s privacy rights depending on circumstances surrounding each case.