In the case of Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board et al., 1991, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that New York's "Son of Sam" law was unconstitutional because it violated First Amendment rights to free speech. The law required that any income from a criminal's description or reenactment of their crime be deposited into an escrow account for five years and made available to victims seeking compensation through civil litigation. This ruling came after publisher Simon & Schuster sued over seized assets related to Nicholas Pileggi’s book “Wiseguy,” which depicted real-life mobster Henry Hill’s crimes in detail. The court held that while states have a compelling interest in compensating crime victims from profits earned by criminals as a result of their crimes, they must do so in ways narrowly tailored to achieve this objective without unnecessarily infringing on protected speech.

In the dissenting opinion for Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision to strike down New York's "Son of Sam" law was too broad and failed to consider potential revisions that could make it constitutional. He agreed with the majority that authors should not be prevented from profiting off their crimes but disagreed on how this principle should be applied in practice. In his view, a revised version of the law could allow convicted criminals to profit from their stories while still ensuring victims have an opportunity to recover damages through civil suits. The justice also expressed concern about other states' similar laws being invalidated as a result of this ruling.